Plus mortgage speculators too and these are also private pensions funds and insurance funds and private investment funds.
Where I live the price increase is due to a lack of supply.
LOL, I love you man but this is literally an ad for communist dormitories....No in theory all lands is taxed at the same rate. In practice sometimes you might have to accept exemptions to make tax reform in this direction politically viable but if it was solely up to me I'd tax all land ownership. Remember in theory I'd also use revenue from LVT to pay for rate cuts on income, corporate, and capital gains taxes.
The idea is to shift the tax burden from workers and businesses to land owners. Many of us are some combination or all three of those things, like the sole proprietor of a non-employee firm who owns the land their business is on, so the point is to incentive wealth creation through labor and capital than rent seeking by cutting taxes on the former. Like you said earlier LVT encourages productive land use and that's because it discourages rent seeking and land speculation which extract value without creating it.
As to your point about developing farms and nature reserves, in theory that's where zoning reform comes in. I think it's better for cities to build upwards on already developed land near the city center than to constantly sprawl outwards with low density residential developments which eat up those farms and nature preserves. It also makes city services more expensive per acre and contributes significantly to municipal debt. For a visual representation:
Okay you can have that, I'm just saying you should pay taxes on the land value so that if you invest in it you're not increasing your tax bill because this encourages land speculation and hoarding of vacant lots. Under an LVT you wouldn't pay any tax on any improvements on the land and in a perfect world you also wouldn't pay much income or capital gains tax so even if the LVT is steep you'd presumably be able to make up for it with increased take home income and capital gains. The more productive your labor and capital the more land you can afford to own while still absorbing the LVT.
No it doesn't discourage building, quite the opposite it encourages it. In your example that person would just sell the land to someone who is willing and able to develop it in the short term. Better it gets sold off and developed then left as a vacant lot.
With all due respect but a little offense intended, this is silly. Georgism and the LVT are the exact opposite of communism.
Once again, you’re simply encouraging large corporations at the detriment of individuals.Okay you can have that, I'm just saying you should pay taxes on the land value so that if you invest in it you're not increasing your tax bill because this encourages land speculation and hoarding of vacant lots. Under an LVT you wouldn't pay any tax on any improvements on the land and in a perfect world you also wouldn't pay much income or capital gains tax so even if the LVT is steep you'd presumably be able to make up for it with increased take home income and capital gains. The more productive your labor and capital the more land you can afford to own while still absorbing the LVT.
No it doesn't discourage building, quite the opposite it encourages it. In your example that person would just sell the land to someone who is willing and able to develop it in the short term. Better it gets sold off and developed then left as a vacant lot.
With all due respect but a little offense intended, this is silly. Georgism and the LVT are the exact opposite of communism.
Marx and Lenin disagreed with the ideas of Henry George's LVT, seeing it as a way to merely reform capitalism than abolish it, while the likes Winston Churchill and Milton Friedman were big fans.
Yes it would encourage dense developments in the most valuable land but the point of an LVT is to discourage land speculation and rent seeking which as a byproduct means more productive land use. What that looks like in practice will vary across space and time. What I think would happen with an LVT and zoning reform is that cities would become gradients of density. The closer to the downtown core the more likely you are to see dense high rises and the further out in the outskirts of the city you are the more likely you are to see larger properties or semi-rural suburbs but there would be lots of variations in between like medium density suburbs or even agricultural communities based on smaller plots and more labor intensive agriculture like market gardening.
So if you're dead set on living on a larger plot it'll actually be easier to find one under a system of LVT as it discourages sprawl which tends to eat up agricultural land and nature preserves.
How? Are you not going to engage with what I wrote there?
Everyone knows there are just a horde of regular folks with a couple million bucks to burn building a couple apartment units or a small condo complex. They just need some time to pull the funds and financing together.
There are things that historically areas in cities had different pros and cons..also prices.Okay you can have that, I'm just saying you should pay taxes on the land value so that if you invest in it you're not increasing your tax bill because this encourages land speculation and hoarding of vacant lots. Under an LVT you wouldn't pay any tax on any improvements on the land and in a perfect world you also wouldn't pay much income or capital gains tax so even if the LVT is steep you'd presumably be able to make up for it with increased take home income and capital gains. The more productive your labor and capital the more land you can afford to own while still absorbing the LVT.
No it doesn't discourage building, quite the opposite it encourages it. In your example that person would just sell the land to someone who is willing and able to develop it in the short term. Better it gets sold off and developed then left as a vacant lot.
With all due respect but a little offense intended, this is silly. Georgism and the LVT are the exact opposite of communism.
Marx and Lenin disagreed with the ideas of Henry George's LVT, seeing it as a way to merely reform capitalism than abolish it, while the likes Winston Churchill and Milton Friedman were big fans.
Yes it would encourage dense developments in the most valuable land but the point of an LVT is to discourage land speculation and rent seeking which as a byproduct means more productive land use. What that looks like in practice will vary across space and time. What I think would happen with an LVT and zoning reform is that cities would become gradients of density. The closer to the downtown core the more likely you are to see dense high rises and the further out in the outskirts of the city you are the more likely you are to see larger properties or semi-rural suburbs but there would be lots of variations in between like medium density suburbs or even agricultural communities based on smaller plots and more labor intensive agriculture like market gardening.
So if you're dead set on living on a larger plot it'll actually be easier to find one under a system of LVT as it discourages sprawl which tends to eat up agricultural land and nature preserves.
"Medium-Run Impacts of Immigration on the Housing Market: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Shift-Share Instrument" by Anna Piil Damm, Ahmad Hassani, Anil Kumar, and Juan Carlos Parra-Alvarez
Link to the study:
Medium-Run Impacts of Immigration on the Housing Market: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Shift-Share Instrument
ROCKWOOL Foundationwww.rfberlin.com
Key findings:
- A 1 percentage point rise in local immigration (over 5 years) boosts municipal private rents by 6% and house prices by 11%
- Immigration explained ~62% of Denmark's 51% house price surge (1999–2016), from index 1.49 to 2.25 (1992=100 base).
- At neighborhood level: 1pp immigration rise → 1.4% higher private rents, 2.2% higher house prices.
If you massively increase the demand, it is no surprise that prices are going up.
That's what they don't get.
If that is the option, why make it tough for skilled labor to migrate, but easy for people that lacks skills and values that are compatible with liberal societies…
I am a skilled immigrant and I can tell you that's not true, although some morons like Trump are starting to do that.
