3 ms·

It’s a finite resource. 100 acres of land being barely used should certainly come with a cost. Of all of the things that could be taxed, this one actually makes

• bombcar 3y ago
  People aren't objecting to taxing 100 acres of Manhattan at rates that are associated with the value of the land there, people are upset about the idea that they could buy something, and then through no fault of their own, it becomes worth more and they have to sell because they can't afford to pay. Sure you get a ball of money as a consolation price, but you still had to move on. But this is more of a straw man than a real objection; as there are various and sundry ways to resolve this (for fixed income, you can have property tax deferral until sale-after-death, you can have homestead exemptions, etc etc).
  • cycrutchfield 3y ago
    > buy something, and then through no fault of their own, it becomes worth more and they have to sell because they can't afford to pay I fail to see why that’s a problem. Those taxes go to fund local services (like schools, police, fire, etc.) whose costs likely scale when the local cost of living and land values scale. Buying land doesn’t mean you should get to lock in the price you pay for these services for perpetuity.