Hacker News Reader

Comment by merrywhether | Hacker News Reader

The easiest argument against current property taxes is that they have completely failed to prevent the current situation. They do not properly incentive the efficient use of land, so mini-kings get to sit in their mini-castles and argue against densification while looking down on the new-comer peasants.

And the current situation is already “destroying” peoples lives as their courses into “normal” adulthood are interrupted and delayed, so it’s somewhat a question of who feels the effects. The difference with devaluing homes is that people may lose some wealth, but they still have a home! Investments are supposed to risky, that’s why you make money off of them sometimes; so let’s make it that way for houses.

View on HN

I can't speak for everywhere, but I live is a very high tax rate in the north east and of cousre the larger the high or more land, the higher the taxes. The town I live in some houses, which generally don't exceed 1 acre lots can have taxes in excess of 100,000k a year. This is really as close to a land tax in action I can see. There are few empty lots, no one is sitting on land, and you can be sure no one is building large apartment buildings - the taxes would be extremely excessive. To add to that, the high taxes have not encouraged investment from the town itself to build infrastructure that would support more efficient use of land. Sure there are roads. The schools are well funded, its the north east which tends to have excellent investments into schools. Not only am I close to New York city, so not out on the woods or anything, I am also on well and septic. There is no municipal water or sewer. This has the added point of making building affordable housing next to impossible, which was likely not the reason for well and septic, but is now a reason not to add it for NIMBY. So while a land tax to punish the rich would help make people feel better, with what I see it will enrich some, but not benefit who you think would benefit.

>and you can be sure no one is building large apartment buildings - the taxes would be extremely excessive

With a land tax the taxes wouldn't increase if large apartment buildings were built on it because the tax amount is solely based on the value of the land and not the property on it.

>So while a land tax to punish the rich would help make people feel better, with what I see it will enrich some, but not benefit who you think would benefit.

First, people don't propose a land tax to punish the rich. Second, it's not about benefitting specific individuals (picking winners and losers). It's about benefitting everyone by ensuring the optimal use of the land.

I was going off the original reply where it was, I understand you don't see it that way. All zoning is local is a term used, and back to my case this sounds like a tax on land, not the building. In that case, all land is the same, perhaps high regardless of the building. So for this town, we have some lots at 1/2 acre, most at 1 acre. Well + septic. If one want to build denser housing it needs to break zoning that is local which says lots must be 1 acre (some are grandfathered in) with a 36 ft set back from the property line and no more than 30% build up of the land. A federal or state rule could do that, but what that doesn't account for is the water aquifer which perhaps can't handle spitting into 1/4 acre lots and quadrupling the town population. Plus 4x septic systems could but an undue strain on the area. A law could be passed to force a sewer system and a municipal water system which would not be cheap. This is one small town and to get a dense population we are talking millions in infrastructure spending to get to a point that can handle a dense population to better use the land. There are just so many factors in each area, each being unique to the area, that makes efficient land use more complicated. I also haven't even got into environmental protection, water run off and other pollution issues that are also addressed in zoning.

The person we replied to proposed to do this to specifically hurt the upper class. He even acknowledged that doing so would unfortunately destroy the middle class in order to hurt the rich

> argue against densification

there's nothing wrong with being against densification. Cities like SF and Seoul would be a nightmare for me to live in because I hate cities and being around a lot of people.

I fail to see how to tax land at a rate that would hurt rich cash loaded people/corporations and still make homes affordable. If your plan works to the point people can afford the taxes on the cheap homes then the rich people can also afford to have neighborhoods of rentals. Please present your idea though, maybe I'm not understanding.

It's not about hurting rich people. Where is this class warfare idea coming from?! It's about making the best use of the land.

A land tax encourages building denser housing and therefore increasing the number of homes available to people, putting downward pressure on housing (and rent) prices.

A land tax does not go up if the dwelling on it go up in value/price. It encourages replacing single family homes with denser dwellings.

Property taxes do not exist to have any impact on mortgage rates. We’ve had 5% mortgage rates a little while back and all was fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com