How cheaper housing can boost productivity

I use to be against LVT until I thought about the scenario where you have someone who buys a house cheap (probably a poor neighborhood) and renovates it. Under our current system of property tax, which depends on the assessed value of the property plus improvements, that inevitably prices home owners and renters in the neighborhood over time. Hence one of the reasons why gentrification pushes out the original residents from the neighborhood. And who gains? Those who do the improvements and those who bought the property before the up tick in valuation (and property taxes).

But under LVT, the tax stays the same whether or not you improve the property. Obviously, there may be some means to game the tax, but ultimately land speculation and gentrification wouldn't work out so well. Rents would still rise due to property improvements, but people would be able to justify those rents based solely on said improvements and not on some market bubble due to speculation. Plus, any improvements done by anyone (speculator or not) are not taxed any worse than those who can't afford or see no use for improvements. Ultimately, it's a more balanced approach to a real problem to be sure. Or at least it's one part of the solution.

> Even if you don't believe they're all psychopaths, even normal people act according to incentives, and no one does anything without some sort of (perceived) benefit to themselves.

I really don't think people in local government are any worse or better than people working in X, for any X. If you think otherways - your choice, but would be nice if you show some proofs.

As a programmer you are making decisions how to use others people money (your code will, and you decide what it does). As an architect you decide how to use others people money. Same for lawyer, banker, insurance agent, business analyst, contractor, ... This is true for most white-collar jobs.

I don't see how you can think local administration clerks are worse and we are better. It's intelectually lazy.

In the worst case - local administration comes from people, and are choosen by people. They are on average only as corrupted, as average citizen.

> Do people want to look at buildings that are clearly just plain ugly? Do they want chaos and mayhem?

Yes. Apparently they don't care. As long as they get paid for that billboard, and it's legal - they are blind. Look at this:

http://grafik.rp.pl/g4a/905243,471826,9.jpg

http://static.wirtualnemedia.pl/media/images/2013/images/szy...

http://www.poranny.pl/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=KP&Date=2007...

http://ekoszalin.pl/sds/2013/06/11/51b71d299cc20.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/b2/da/d4/z13949618Q,Reklamowy-chaos-w...

Tell me with a straight face it's not out of control.

This is how my country loooks like now. It can be solved, because I've seen it solved in countries like Germany, Czech Republic (and to lesser degree even Lithuania or Slovakia). It's simple - you restrict billboards and advertisments in the city. No need for definition of "bad taste" in law.

Then there's simple bad planning (or no planning). This is most true in new suburban districts. Typical image: http://m.ocdn.eu/_m/45a8af04428ecb9e04a332883176027c,29,1.jp...

Randomly choosen plots, random road network build after the fact so that everybody has some way to drive to their house, no matter in how contrived way. Costs for building infrastructure much higher than if someone spend a month thinking beforehand. Again - chaos. And it can be easily solved with proper urban planning. It's not rocket science.

As for bad taste - this is harder problem, but it can also be solved. Just to show what we are speaking about:

http://www.malak.com.pl/termomodernizacja/elewacje-rozane3.j...

http://www.malak.com.pl/termomodernizacja/elewacje-teczowe2....

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8974/1118221.jpg

http://naszglospoznanski.pl/wp-content/uploads/przedszkole_f...

This is understandable reaction to 50 years of gray communism, but still. At least the next generation will fix this with some paint.

Planning restrictions are very popular with old people who are "alright thanks".

It's a method that attributes reward to where the effort is put in, therefore you can be sure the rich hate it.

> You're not really addressing what I said there.

I am - you basicaly said that public sector is more corrupt than average, and you try to prove it by saying:

a) people working in public sector are selected for corruption

b) even if not - all people are suspectible to corruption.

My argument against a) is - you haven't shown any data suggesting that public sector is more corrupt, and you haven't shown any mechanism which should select for corruption in public sector, that isn't also present in private sector.

My argument against b) is - if all people are suspectible to corruption - then why assume they are corrupt by default, when you don't assume the same for people working in private sector?

> Why does someone work hard to get into a position of political power, if not to use it to his benefit? Not using it would be like working hard to be able to buy a BMW and then just letting it sit in the garage forever.

Because he wants the job? You know - to get paid? Or even to do sth he really wants to do? Same reason as people working to be a programmer, architect, lawyer, banker, etc have. All of these positions can be abused, but we don't usually think majority of these people only started doing it to get into position they can abuse.

> That's far-fetched, considering the programmer is being paid with private money, to do whatever the company wants him to do

And public officials are paid with public money to do what people want them to do. They may do that, or try to cheat. Same as the programmer. If you work for a big financial company you have bigger opportunities to steal than most local public officials. And bigger amounts. And it's not nessesarily money of people that hired you - you can just as well steal from clients.

Yes there is source control and they will catch you eventually.

And the same is true for public officials - they have to sign under their decisions.

May I remind you of the reasons for 2008 crisis? It wasn't corruption in public sector. BTW Poland had no banking crisis, because we had strict (and conservative) bank controlling institution (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) that didn't allowed banks to play with derivatives too much.

I fail to see the difference, especially in practice. I've had no first-hand experience of corruption in public sector. I've had experience with small-scale corruption in private sector (ticket controller in bus offering to let it go for a small bribe).

IMHO it's just that people think "they are bad and we are not".

> You also ignored my last point. If the building quality is fine because people want good quality, why wouldn't the other stuff be fine too, considering it's guided by what people want (instead of legislation)?

I've said it's a combination of many factors - quick predictable feedback loop (harsh weather every year) forces people to look for good quality or predictably and quickly suffer the consequences. Strict legislation forces developers to provide good quality in matters that aren't frequently and predictably tested by forces of nature (fire protection, not falling into pieces).

Esthethics is just higher up the Maslov hierarchy than "being warm and dry", and there's almost no legislation.

Also, the billboards situation is straightforward example of tragedy of commons. If you can't see the actual city behind advets anyway - you may as well put another on your plot and get the money, too.

And you failed to address my point about construction and advertising law in Germany being much stricter than in Poland. It's obviously possible without encoding "good taste" in law.

> They'll get better. In the meantime, move out if it bothers you enough.

That's disingenious. If people moved out instead of trying to improve what they don't like - nothing would get changed, ever. I might have got carried away to start this discussion on international forum. The suggestion of The Economist that making construction law less strict is the way to go triggered me ;)