3 ms·

I disagree with the premise that the tax reduction for land with homes built on it exists to de-incentivize people from tearing down abandoned homes. Much the o

I disagree with the premise that the tax reduction for land with homes built on it exists to de-incentivize people from tearing down abandoned homes. Much the opposite - the purpose of the law is to encourage the efficient use of land. There are similar tax breaks on agricultural land - where unused agricultural land is taxed at a significantly higher rate than land that is being farmed. I think they probably just didn't foresee a massive population decline coming when the law was originally enacted, and this was just an unintended side effect. Now the government views the huge number of abandoned homes as a social issue that needs to be addressed. And, as I mentioned in another comment up above, the law was already amended in 2023 to exclude abandoned homes from preferential tax treatment. I do agree with your point that increased demand for demolition services will increase prices and probably divert labor from other industries. But I don't see this as a huge problem. The supply chains/expertise already exist due to Japan's historical preference for demolishing and building new, and it requires mostly unskilled labor (except for the guy operating heavy machinery), so it should be fairly straightforward to ramp up.

underlipton 2y ago
>I disagree with the premise that the tax reduction for land with homes built on it exists to de-incentivize people from tearing down abandoned homes. Okay. You'd have to explain why. >Much the opposite - the purpose of the law is to encourage the efficient use of land. That's not the opposite of my argument. It's not even mutually exclusive with it. >I think they probably just didn't foresee a massive population decline coming when the law was originally enacted Since that would be 1950, that's plausible. But I think that actually also bolsters my case. 5 years post-war, the last thing the government would have wanted is labor going towards demolishing homes that didn't need to be, just because it would be tax-advantaged; the focus would have been rebuilding. Again, I think that it's plausible that this effect was the intention. However, what's changed are the circumstances, as you said. The law didn't keep up with them until the act passed in 2014.

underlipton 2y ago

>I disagree with the premise that the tax reduction for land with homes built on it exists to de-incentivize people from tearing down abandoned homes. Okay. You'd have to explain why. >Much the opposite - the purpose of the law is to encourage the efficient use of land. That's not the opposite of my argument. It's not even mutually exclusive with it. >I think they probably just didn't foresee a massive population decline coming when the law was originally enacted Since that would be 1950, that's plausible. But I think that actually also bolsters my case. 5 years post-war, the last thing the government would have wanted is labor going towards demolishing homes that didn't need to be, just because it would be tax-advantaged; the focus would have been rebuilding. Again, I think that it's plausible that this effect was the intention. However, what's changed are the circumstances, as you said. The law didn't keep up with them until the act passed in 2014.