4 ms·
This kind of reminds me of when airspace was separated from Land property rights. There doesn't necessarily need to be any underlying logic or consistency, so a
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
This kind of reminds me of when airspace was separated from Land property rights. There doesn't necessarily need to be any underlying logic or consistency, so a very tailored legal interpretation could be formed in theory.
That said, I think I'm much more practical solution is to focus on the buyer's rights and non-competitive behavior then limiting sellers rights. It makes intuitive sense that people would be able to option or sell indefinite use rights if they own the thing itself. It is less intuitive that individuals have a right to aggregate such options for Monopoly.
Now that I think about it, it seems there could be some comparison to the corner crossing cases that are being litigated too
- chis 2y agoI think a really natural solution would be to tax these sort of land restrictions for as long as someone is actually willing to pay. Just assess the value with the restrictions vs without and then tax it at the standard property tax rate. If nobody cares enough to pay for the restriction then it is lifted.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoare you OK with charging apartment renters property tax in addition to the landlord? On a more serious note, I think tax is a terrible solution. Who is going to value all of these use rights, restrictions, and options on an ongoing basis. Why punish everyone with any kind of good faith contract to deal with an extremely niche issue, which may not even be a problem. Seems like the current solution is best. If someone is bothered, they can complain and the AG investigates. If someone is engaging in anticompetitive action, they get fined. It amounts to the same thing without screwing everyone over.
- kilotaras 2y agoThere's a reasonably simple change that would allow application of Harberger's taxes. 1. Restrictions have to have a "controlling party": a dedicated party that controls the restrictions and can agree to lift it. Classical example would be HOA, but it can also be a seller if they want to sell property with additional restrictions. 2. The controlling party sets the price of a restriction 3. Restricted party can remove the restriction paying price set in 2 to controlling part. 4. The controlling party pays tax as percentage of price set in 2.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSo you still have renters paying property taxes. Renters are the controlling party. Landlords are the restricted party- they can not rent to other people or use the house themselves.
- kilotaras 2y agoIn a supply-restricted markets taxes and subsidies are ultimately paid by a supplier independent on who actually transfers the money to government.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSure, but that doesn't preclude crappy government tax policy having an impact on markets. Consumption and supply is not fixed and taxes aren't a free lunch.