4 ms·
That seems to make sense. Are there any cities or states that have tried that? If not, why not?
by niceice 3y ago
That seems to make sense. Are there any cities or states that have tried that? If not, why not?
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoDetroit is considering it. Nobody else has tried it, so far as I know. Why not? Well, it's a... let's call it a "heterodox" economic theory. It's not mainstream. And, if a state were to do it, it would probably have negative effects on farming. (A city, not so much, unless there was significant farmland within the city limits.) Making most of the farms in your state less economically viable is probably not a formula for winning elections, so a state is probably not going to go for it.
- alexb_ 3y ago> And, if a state were to do it, it would probably have negative effects on farming. So create a different tax system for farmland, or exempt them from taxes. It's not like giving farmers subsidies and tax relief is unprecedented.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoSure. It just blows some of the "one simple trick" aura around a land tax. "One simple trick... except we have to exempt farmland from it... and there may be some other fiddles we need to keep it from ruining other groups by unintended consequences... and then everybody and their dog are going to claim that it's unfairly disadvantaging their group...." That's a much messier sell than "just tax land".
- alexb_ 3y agoAnyone who tries to sell you a simple, cure-all solution is lying. Exemptions, incentives, edge cases, and more all have to be taken into account - ESPECIALLY when you are dealing with something as sensitive as people's money. The tax code is already super complicated as it is for a reason.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoWell, to agree with you (am I allowed?) and say a word on your side of the question: A land use tax could have a number of exceptions and complications and still be far simpler than what we have now.