3 ms·
Understood, although not much of a disincentive. I think I have an aversion to just taxing what people own. When it's a building, at least that is related to se
by robertlagrant 3y ago
Understood, although not much of a disincentive. I think I have an aversion to just taxing what people own. When it's a building, at least that is related to services they're likely to consume; it's not just "we want a cut".
- artimaeis 3y agoI think that's the jib though - in a lot of countries you don't really "own" the land. You and the government(s) get to just agree that it's your responsibility for a while. LVT cleans up this incentive some by putting taxes in place in areas where the land is more valuable. I think Georgists would argue for doing that _and_ removing property taxes, specifically so you aren't taxed for the things you own.
- robertlagrant 3y agoBut... you are being taxed for things you own. I'd prefer to have more direct spending on services than we have, so the money isn't proxied off a building, or how many windows you have, or whatever harebrained scheme local bureacrats might invent. So you just pay X a month to have trash taken; X for sewage, etc etc. But I'd say that moving to just taking money in a way entirely unrelated to service consumption is going in the wrong direction.