196

16247 readers

2405 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

627

Landlords ☭ (midwest.social)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

how would you implement it though? if you just make it directly based off the land area, you'll tax farmers and stuff unfairly, and if uou do it based on land area and population density, you'll encourage suburban sprawl

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Okay but farmers already get so many subsidies that it wouldn't at all be hard to write exceptions already built into the lower for them? Hmm.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This can probably answer your questions.

A key idea of land value taxes is it's on land value, rather than land area. Urban land is faaaaar more valuable than urban land on a per-acre basis, so someone who owns 1 acre of land in Manhattan will pay vastly more than a farmer who owns 1 acre in rural Nebraska.

As for appraisal, we already sorta do this with property taxes, as property taxes tax the land value + improvement value. With land value taxes, we simply seek to tax just the unimproved land value. Why? Property taxes can disincentivize development and incentivize land-hoarding and speculation. In contrast, even a milquetoast land value tax has been shown to reduce land speculation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Property taxes can disincentivize development and incentivize land-hoarding and speculation

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.