News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by cm2187 on Saturday October 24, 2015 @06:41AM (#10443156)
If you agree that there will be no further densification of already developped urban area (whether because of planning restrictions or physical constraints), then adding taxes isn't an incentive to better using the land. Which was the point of this tax.

Preventing bubbles is another problem. I think in London the problem is that brits have this curious obsession with owning property and be willing to bid as much as they legally can, burrying themselves into debt, in order to achieve that. This is compounded with the lack of supply and foreigners using London property as a safe. But unless this obsession ceases, adding taxes or limits to borrowing isn't going to prevent bubbles. In fact the recent increase in stamp duty on expensive properties does not seem to have any effect.

Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by twic on Saturday October 24, 2015 @07:02AM (#10443188)
> If you agree that there will be no further densification of already developped urban area (whether because of planning restrictions or physical constraints), then adding taxes isn't an incentive to better using the land.

This is key. A land value tax would have to go hand-in-hand with measures to allow density to increase. That would mean changes in planning laws, and also building of infrastructure like transport, doctors' surgeries, schools, etc. The former can be done at the stroke of a pen, the latter can be funded from the increased tax receipts that come with higher density.

Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by cm2187 on Saturday October 24, 2015 @07:08AM (#10443202)
I agree but I don't think a tax would be needed where there is a strong housing supply crisis if planning restrictions are relaxed. Property developpers are already frenetically building residential skycrappers where they can in London.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by mrec on Saturday October 24, 2015 @07:37AM (#10443270)
You're not seriously holding up London as an example of a functioning housing market, are you?
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by cm2187 on Saturday October 24, 2015 @07:56AM (#10443321)
I am merely suggesting that in the areas where there are little planning restrictions, the developpers do build the much needed housing supply.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by twic on Saturday October 24, 2015 @04:49PM (#10444814)
My point was that it's not enough to just build housing - you need to make sure the supply of public infrastructure increases accordingly. This is an existing problem in London, hence section 106 agreements and all that:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_gain

Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by biehl on Saturday October 24, 2015 @04:16PM (#10444713)
[if no densification]...then adding taxes isn't an incentive to better using the land. Which was the point of this tax.

You seem to equate "densification" and "better using the land". That is a narrow definition of "better using the land".

In strictly utilitarian terms any change that increases total utility would be "better using the land", so if a tax increase on land makes some current residents reprioritise their money and decide to move, giving space to other people who value the location more, then that is "better using the land".

Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by cm2187 on Sunday October 25, 2015 @04:52AM (#10446385)
Because substituting people does nothing to the housing supply. The only thing that will increase the supply is increasing the density or expanding. The later being very challenged by the TFL infrastructures.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by eru on Sunday October 25, 2015 @07:43AM (#10446673)
If the government gets to reap some of the benefits that densification brings to the value of land, it would be harder for NIMBYs to argue in favour of use restrictions. Thus the land value tax might help with densification. But only indirectly.