>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. Yo

>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I think they probably just didn't foresee a massive population decline coming when the law was originally enacted Since that would be 1950, that's plausible.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.