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:
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.