3 ms·

seniors and disabled people can't just live somewhere cheaper? I think they should be pushed out by the wealthy. If you're holding onto residential land in a d

seniors and disabled people can't just live somewhere cheaper? I think they should be pushed out by the wealthy. If you're holding onto residential land in a developing city, and someone wants to build a skyscraper there they should be able to buy you out at a reasonable price. You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax

snarf21 1y ago
Serious question: What about when you are old? Okay being forced to live in a one room shack in the middle of nowhere just because you are retired?
- ty6853 1y ago
  I live in the middle of nowhere where lots of people build one room shacks in the desert, because we allow that here. You can build whatever the fuck you want. Some are living in mud huts (yes in the USA). They shouldn't be forced to do it, but they seem to love it. You'd be suprised how many people would prefer a one room shack given the option, lots of people don't actually want the kind of houses zoning and codes require in more dystopian parts of the US, they would rather spend that money on leisure or their children, or their own health.
  - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
    That's great for everyone who likes asceticism, but what about everyone else?
- rcpt 1y ago
  How about being forced to stay put forever in the same two story 4 bedroom house in a busy job center?
giantg2 1y ago
It sounds like you want to just move the undesirables to a ghetto (in the real sense of the word). Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Redevelop the land as the population turns over instead of marginalizing people. "You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax" What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you?
- beeflet 1y ago
  >Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Because the taxes aren't reasonable. Land is a limited resource. Imagine a regulation that limited factories by taxing them on the amount of smog they produce. Your argument is like saying "old factories should be able to produce smog at the same tax rate as when they started, it's unreasonable to expect companies to just rebuild factories around new technology" >What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you? I don't own any property. But if I did, you would be free to liberate it for a pretty penny. Parting with friends is a sadness. A place is only a place.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    "Because the taxes aren't reasonable. Land is a limited resource." Taxes seem high to me in my area. Land is a limited resource, but not as limited as you are implying. There is plenty of land in other areas that could be developed. Instead, we have people with a preference for homes in existing areas favoring using the government to force people out. Your smog example is completely off base and doesn't represent the way the taxes work in many areas outside of California. My taxes go up every year and will eventually be reassessed for additonal increase. However, that assessment goes up based on reasonable evaluation and not on someone potentially targeting you or your property by bidding it up. "I don't own any property." I assume you live somewhere. Perhaps you will be forced out when a wealthy company buys up all the rentals and raises rents.
    - bombcar 1y ago
      People don’t realize that all property tax levied is paid for … by people. If you put a $10m/yr property tax on the local Walmart, that money simply comes from slightly higher prices on everything (or most non-nationally advertised things). Landlords aren’t paying property tax out of the goodness of their hearts, they’re paying them out of the rents, and if they go high enough they’ll either raise rents or sell-abandon the building. Which may be the goal, after all.
      - 1y ago
ty6853 1y ago
Implementing Georgism before deregulating land use seems like putting the cart before the horse. It's quite likely that once you can legally build a skyscraper on any piece of earth you own, that resorting to a tax extortion fest for old people in desirable areas will seem far more absurd than it already does. High land values are in large part because zoning requires oversized land ownership for a token to build a housing unit, creating mass artificial demand. The other piece is in places like some of California the regulatory / licensing / permit costs cost more than it cost me to build my whole house.
- beeflet 1y ago
  Is it putting the cart before the horse? those zoning laws are a result of property owners trying to benefit from the unimproved value of the land by locally restricting the supply of property. If you cut off the profit motive by disenfranchising property owners in this respect, the building regulation will return to the level needed for (actual) public safety and wellness (as opposed to just racketeering).
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    Under LVT there are huge inventive to keeping your land value low. Densifying causes land values to increase so rational actors who dont want to move will oppose density.
    - beeflet 1y ago
      If the value of their land is low, you can buy them out for cheap and change the local regulation.
      - bombcar 1y ago
        Only if you can force them to sell. The world is full of land that is held by sellers who won’t sell it “for what it’s worth” - for any number of reasons. Heck, moving hassle alone means you’d need to hit me with a 50% premium to get me to sell my house, because I don’t want to move right now.
jjav 1y ago
> seniors and disabled people can't just live somewhere cheaper? > I think they should be pushed out by the wealthy. This pretty well summarizes why there is so much opposition.. Seriously? Dump the elderly and disabled on the street to favor the very rich?

snarf21 1y ago

Serious question: What about when you are old? Okay being forced to live in a one room shack in the middle of nowhere just because you are retired?

ty6853 1y ago
I live in the middle of nowhere where lots of people build one room shacks in the desert, because we allow that here. You can build whatever the fuck you want. Some are living in mud huts (yes in the USA). They shouldn't be forced to do it, but they seem to love it. You'd be suprised how many people would prefer a one room shack given the option, lots of people don't actually want the kind of houses zoning and codes require in more dystopian parts of the US, they would rather spend that money on leisure or their children, or their own health.
- BeFlatXIII 1y ago
  That's great for everyone who likes asceticism, but what about everyone else?
rcpt 1y ago
How about being forced to stay put forever in the same two story 4 bedroom house in a busy job center?

giantg2 1y ago

It sounds like you want to just move the undesirables to a ghetto (in the real sense of the word). Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Redevelop the land as the population turns over instead of marginalizing people. "You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax" What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you?

beeflet 1y ago
>Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Because the taxes aren't reasonable. Land is a limited resource. Imagine a regulation that limited factories by taxing them on the amount of smog they produce. Your argument is like saying "old factories should be able to produce smog at the same tax rate as when they started, it's unreasonable to expect companies to just rebuild factories around new technology" >What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you? I don't own any property. But if I did, you would be free to liberate it for a pretty penny. Parting with friends is a sadness. A place is only a place.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "Because the taxes aren't reasonable. Land is a limited resource." Taxes seem high to me in my area. Land is a limited resource, but not as limited as you are implying. There is plenty of land in other areas that could be developed. Instead, we have people with a preference for homes in existing areas favoring using the government to force people out. Your smog example is completely off base and doesn't represent the way the taxes work in many areas outside of California. My taxes go up every year and will eventually be reassessed for additonal increase. However, that assessment goes up based on reasonable evaluation and not on someone potentially targeting you or your property by bidding it up. "I don't own any property." I assume you live somewhere. Perhaps you will be forced out when a wealthy company buys up all the rentals and raises rents.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    People don’t realize that all property tax levied is paid for … by people. If you put a $10m/yr property tax on the local Walmart, that money simply comes from slightly higher prices on everything (or most non-nationally advertised things). Landlords aren’t paying property tax out of the goodness of their hearts, they’re paying them out of the rents, and if they go high enough they’ll either raise rents or sell-abandon the building. Which may be the goal, after all.
    - 1y ago

ty6853 1y ago

Implementing Georgism before deregulating land use seems like putting the cart before the horse. It's quite likely that once you can legally build a skyscraper on any piece of earth you own, that resorting to a tax extortion fest for old people in desirable areas will seem far more absurd than it already does. High land values are in large part because zoning requires oversized land ownership for a token to build a housing unit, creating mass artificial demand. The other piece is in places like some of California the regulatory / licensing / permit costs cost more than it cost me to build my whole house.

beeflet 1y ago
Is it putting the cart before the horse? those zoning laws are a result of property owners trying to benefit from the unimproved value of the land by locally restricting the supply of property. If you cut off the profit motive by disenfranchising property owners in this respect, the building regulation will return to the level needed for (actual) public safety and wellness (as opposed to just racketeering).
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  Under LVT there are huge inventive to keeping your land value low. Densifying causes land values to increase so rational actors who dont want to move will oppose density.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    If the value of their land is low, you can buy them out for cheap and change the local regulation.
    - bombcar 1y ago
      Only if you can force them to sell. The world is full of land that is held by sellers who won’t sell it “for what it’s worth” - for any number of reasons. Heck, moving hassle alone means you’d need to hit me with a 50% premium to get me to sell my house, because I don’t want to move right now.

jjav 1y ago

> seniors and disabled people can't just live somewhere cheaper? > I think they should be pushed out by the wealthy. This pretty well summarizes why there is so much opposition.. Seriously? Dump the elderly and disabled on the street to favor the very rich?