4 ms·

> Is there a clear way to guard this system from building higher and higher economic centers Sorry, is this a bad thing? On the social side: In the current sy

> Is there a clear way to guard this system from building higher and higher economic centers Sorry, is this a bad thing? On the social side: In the current system, poor people are forced to live in ghettos and spend 2 hours a day on a round-trip commute. It's too expensive to live near their work. If we had a land tax, the rich enclaves near the city are now financially incentivized to open up their public schools and areas to poor(er) people by building vertically. The current incentives point in the opposite direction. On the environment side: We will have less sprawl, and by extension less environmental damage. It requires less concrete, less energy, less roads, less driving, less shops, less train lines, etc, to serve a dense area, on a per-capita basis. You are however correct that natural reserves are a public good, technically speaking, and an efficient land tax system will need to account for public goods in its implementation. This is an important implementation detail that I'd defer to economists. > Related to that, what's the solution for infrastructure and resource requirements? Use the revenue from the tax to build infrastructure. Obviously it can't be an overnight thing, but we can do it over a decade-like time horizon.

dgoldstein0 3y ago
So in other words, issue some bonds to make future tax revenue pay for the current expenditures to build the infrastructure.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  The temporal misalignment might not be so bad. Residential dwelling construction and public infrastructure should both lag the actual tax revenue.
- ufocia 3y ago
  I also thought this was bad until I gave it some thought recently. I'm not saying that I'm out of that camp completely because I think that the approach in some cases leads to overspending and may increase the overall cost in real, not just nominal, terms. However, bonding out projects does spread the expenditure in time, more directly charging the future users for infrastructure they use. Sure you could recoup the costs through user fees, but then you're effectively borrowing money from the current tax base, so "bonds" by another name.
_heimdall 3y ago
Both of these scenarios are a gamble and not guaranteed. On the social side: the gamble is that social growth will outpace the increased economic pressure. Meaning, you need the new vertical growth to create opportunities faster than it increases prices further in the area. A land tax alone wouldn't pull people out of poverty, create affordable housing, or open up public school. Those are all just potential avenues for the city to develop, not guarantees. On the environment: cities aren't isolated enclaves. Resources needed to build, maintain, and feed the city all come from the outside world. The more you build up the more steel, concrete, glass, energy, etc is needed. The more people packed into the city the more food you need to ship in and waste you need to ship out.
- eppsilon 3y ago
  Sprawling low density cities consume resources too. Mass transit is less effective, so more people must buy and drive cars. Roads and highways are wider and more extensive. Cars need storage at the origin and destination of every trip, so homes need driveways or garages and businesses need parking lots. Other infrastructure must expand too: power lines, water/sewer pipes, communication wires, and so on. One million people would need about the same amount of food/energy if they lived in 1,000 sq. mi. as they would if they lived in 100 sq. mi. But the cost per person to house and transport people in a dense city is lower than in a sprawling one.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > On the social side: the gamble is that social growth will outpace the increased economic pressure. Meaning, you need the new vertical growth to create opportunities faster than it increases prices further in the area. A land tax alone wouldn't pull people out of poverty, create affordable housing, or open up public school. Those are all just potential avenues for the city to develop, not guarantees. There are a lot of ill defined and bizarre things here. What is "economic pressure"? I have never heard such a term before. Why would there be "price increases" (inflation)? I have never heard anyone serious posit a link between density and inflation. It's the exact opposite because economics of scale and scope can deliver services more efficiently. Why shouldn't a land tax contribute towards "affordable housing" when the economic logic predicts it will have a deflationary impact on housing costs? Why do you think I'm saying that a land tax will "open up [new] public schools"? I said there would be a change in incentives away from excluding poor people from your local school catchment area, which has historically driven local resistance to upzoning. Honestly, it sounds like you should read up on basic economics before you form these opinions. The subject matter is primarily economics and such basic knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding the rationale behind one tax or another. > The more you build up the more steel, concrete, glass, energy, etc is needed. No, this is forgetting that you have the same number of people in either scenario. It takes more resources to build 1000 single detached homes (and associated roads, train stations, shops etc) than 10 apartment buildings with 100 homes (with less roads, less train stations than the former scenario).

dgoldstein0 3y ago

So in other words, issue some bonds to make future tax revenue pay for the current expenditures to build the infrastructure.

hackerlight 3y ago
The temporal misalignment might not be so bad. Residential dwelling construction and public infrastructure should both lag the actual tax revenue.
ufocia 3y ago
I also thought this was bad until I gave it some thought recently. I'm not saying that I'm out of that camp completely because I think that the approach in some cases leads to overspending and may increase the overall cost in real, not just nominal, terms. However, bonding out projects does spread the expenditure in time, more directly charging the future users for infrastructure they use. Sure you could recoup the costs through user fees, but then you're effectively borrowing money from the current tax base, so "bonds" by another name.

_heimdall 3y ago

Both of these scenarios are a gamble and not guaranteed. On the social side: the gamble is that social growth will outpace the increased economic pressure. Meaning, you need the new vertical growth to create opportunities faster than it increases prices further in the area. A land tax alone wouldn't pull people out of poverty, create affordable housing, or open up public school. Those are all just potential avenues for the city to develop, not guarantees. On the environment: cities aren't isolated enclaves. Resources needed to build, maintain, and feed the city all come from the outside world. The more you build up the more steel, concrete, glass, energy, etc is needed. The more people packed into the city the more food you need to ship in and waste you need to ship out.

eppsilon 3y ago
Sprawling low density cities consume resources too. Mass transit is less effective, so more people must buy and drive cars. Roads and highways are wider and more extensive. Cars need storage at the origin and destination of every trip, so homes need driveways or garages and businesses need parking lots. Other infrastructure must expand too: power lines, water/sewer pipes, communication wires, and so on. One million people would need about the same amount of food/energy if they lived in 1,000 sq. mi. as they would if they lived in 100 sq. mi. But the cost per person to house and transport people in a dense city is lower than in a sprawling one.
hackerlight 3y ago
> On the social side: the gamble is that social growth will outpace the increased economic pressure. Meaning, you need the new vertical growth to create opportunities faster than it increases prices further in the area. A land tax alone wouldn't pull people out of poverty, create affordable housing, or open up public school. Those are all just potential avenues for the city to develop, not guarantees. There are a lot of ill defined and bizarre things here. What is "economic pressure"? I have never heard such a term before. Why would there be "price increases" (inflation)? I have never heard anyone serious posit a link between density and inflation. It's the exact opposite because economics of scale and scope can deliver services more efficiently. Why shouldn't a land tax contribute towards "affordable housing" when the economic logic predicts it will have a deflationary impact on housing costs? Why do you think I'm saying that a land tax will "open up [new] public schools"? I said there would be a change in incentives away from excluding poor people from your local school catchment area, which has historically driven local resistance to upzoning. Honestly, it sounds like you should read up on basic economics before you form these opinions. The subject matter is primarily economics and such basic knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding the rationale behind one tax or another. > The more you build up the more steel, concrete, glass, energy, etc is needed. No, this is forgetting that you have the same number of people in either scenario. It takes more resources to build 1000 single detached homes (and associated roads, train stations, shops etc) than 10 apartment buildings with 100 homes (with less roads, less train stations than the former scenario).