91–100 of 620 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Early born privilege.
This is local democracy in action. Vested landowners can put up barriers to entry to prop up their investments. They can also hand it down to their family, entrenching wealth for generations. Sucks to be an outsider.
Not any more.
Land value taxes are even better. Property taxes provide a disincentive to making the land more productive. A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents.
property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. USA has about 2.5 billion acres. 1/4 acre per person in an average area tax free is reasonable.
When LVT is used to fund UBI, that ability is automatic: the "break even" point (where your taxes minus dividends are zero) would represent you owning a "reasonable amount of land" (as measured by value). If you own more than that, you pay for it; if you own less than that, you're paid for it.
Land value taxes are even better. Property taxes provide a disincentive to making the land more productive. A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents.
> A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents Zoning usually dictates what's allowed and is indifferent to tax rates
And, thanks to Proposition 13, California has entirely removed this policy tool from consumer housing. A tremendous amount of our problems, from high rent to gridlock, can be traced back to this decision.
Prop 13 solved two problems at once. It forced a reduction in the out-of-control government spending, and it saved seniors from losing their houses. IMHO the only problem with Prop 13 was the "grandfathering" clause. The cuts should have been perpetual and across the board.
Land value taxes are even better. Property taxes provide a disincentive to making the land more productive. A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents.
[1] In practice and as a primary means of property taxation. For example, proponents of wealth taxes talk about Switzerland, but the percentage of wealth that gets taxed there is quite small and nowhere near what proposals for wealth taxes in the US are aiming for. In other words, what's a good country to look at to see LVT used effectively?
Land value taxes are even better. Property taxes provide a disincentive to making the land more productive. A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents.
property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. USA has about 2.5 billion acres. 1/4 acre per person in an average area tax free is reasonable.
A fixed mille-rate results in taxes going up as value goes up. This might be difficult to plan for and manage. However, many cities will simply put a lien on the property and collect when the property is sold/transferred/person dies.
However, this isn't necessarily how things need to be done. In New Zealand, the mille-rate is set to clear the budget. That way, the mille-rate changes with the city's budget, not valuations.
If the city wants to do more, they put it into the budget and say "do you want to pay for it?". Then the mille-rate is changed and everyone's taxes change.
If your house changes value, your taxes don't change! Unless your neighborhood changes its relative valuation, then it might go up or down.
In my region of northern New Hampshire, there are a lot of retired folks with houses rising from $200k-ish values to closer to $500k-ish values in the last 5-10 years. As such, there's a lot of discussion around lowering property taxes to help these retirees. In my opinion? Fuck 'em. Property taxes are a brilliant method of perfectly progressive taxation: you can always choose to live in a cheaper home. If your home…
> You can always choose to live in a cheaper home. So your 90 year old grandpa has been living in a two bedroom apartment on the lower east side for 65 years. When he moved in at age 25, it was considered a crummy but affordable neighborhood, but now it's expensive and desirable. You want a 90 year old to have to move? I agree that maybe a 65 year old couple no longer needs to be in a 3,000 square foot home, but ther…
It's cruel, but that same cruelty is deemed acceptable towards 'have nots'.
In my region of northern New Hampshire, there are a lot of retired folks with houses rising from $200k-ish values to closer to $500k-ish values in the last 5-10 years. As such, there's a lot of discussion around lowering property taxes to help these retirees. In my opinion? Fuck 'em. Property taxes are a brilliant method of perfectly progressive taxation: you can always choose to live in a cheaper home. If your home…
Almost anyone can afford property… provided you’re willing to move. I’m where I live it costs $40-$50k / acre up to $150k / acre. 30 min away it’s $3-4k / acre. I personally am opposed to property taxes. I think it basically implies rent of the land. Then again, I’m basically opposed to all taxes except tariffs and perhaps licensing fees. For instance, you could implement a licensing fee to use the public roads. Or a…
That's already implied from the existence of land deeds and the enforcement thereof: you're renting a subset of a nation-state's sovereign territory.
And, thanks to Proposition 13, California has entirely removed this policy tool from consumer housing. A tremendous amount of our problems, from high rent to gridlock, can be traced back to this decision.
Prop 13 solved two problems at once. It forced a reduction in the out-of-control government spending, and it saved seniors from losing their houses. IMHO the only problem with Prop 13 was the "grandfathering" clause. The cuts should have been perpetual and across the board.