News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by eru on Sunday October 25, 2015 @07:35AM (#10446661)
The perverse incentive is: the billionaire would be wasting less space for himself and sharing it with other people---but the tax system would discourage that.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by ZenoArrow on Sunday October 25, 2015 @12:07PM (#10447225)
Based on the relatively small number of billionaires/rich people in the world, that's a compromise I'm willing to make. If the rich want to house the poor they can do so through a charitable foundation.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out already, we could make it so that only properties that sit within a predetermined land mass size would be exempt from tax.

Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by eru on Monday October 26, 2015 @06:26AM (#10450459)
Why go by size and not by value? Someone having a huge estate in the middle of nowhere is not a problem, vs occupying the same amount of space (or even a much smaller, but still large one) in the city centre is.
Re:Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point by ZenoArrow on Saturday October 31, 2015 @09:04AM (#10482526)
Value is open to fluctuations, size is not.

A large estate in the middle of nowhere is still potentially wasteful. For example, could that land not be used for farming or wildlife? How many bathrooms does one person need?