3 ms·

I 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

by chis 2y ago

I 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 ago
are 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 ago
  There'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 ago
    So 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 ago
      In a supply-restricted markets taxes and subsidies are ultimately paid by a supplier independent on who actually transfers the money to government.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure, 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.

by chis 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

are 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 ago
There'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 ago
  So 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 ago
    In a supply-restricted markets taxes and subsidies are ultimately paid by a supplier independent on who actually transfers the money to government.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Sure, 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.