Hacker News Reader

Holding raw land doesn't become a rent-seeking activity until it is sold. The owner could be waiting to accuse capital for development, waiting to purchase an ajoining property to expand, etc. A transfer tax fits this better than a land value tax.

View on HN

On the other hand you could argue that someone who had a better strategy for accruing capital should instead have purchased that land. The opportunity cost of nothing happing on that land is there regardless of the users intended future development.

There'll definitely be people in that camp, with good reasons for holding on to land. Flipside, there are many other people that know the land value mechanic and take advantage.

A transfer tax is decent, but it can be sidestepped by just holding land and selling when the tax changes. Land holding is a long game.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com