Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by Schopenhauer01 on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:48AM
(#31095018)
Land value tax = Higher rent, no?
Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by thematrixturtle on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:22AM
(#31095288)
Not in the long term if it leads to unproductive property being put to better uses, like building housing.
Land value taxes aren't a silver bullet that can solve problems like California's permitting process, but it would certainly align incentives in a much healthier direction than Prop 13 does.
Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by Rastonbury on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @12:53PM
(#31099779)
Just to add, Singapore is quite unique in that it has like 85% homeownership (most of it government housing) and there are virtually no homeless people
Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by unmole on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @01:50PM
(#31100512)
It's closer to 78% and that is still potentially misleading .Young people living with their parents because they can't get a HBD flat are also included in that 78% figure.
Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by Schopenhauer01 on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @10:07AM
(#31097158)
Now minimum rent becomes the value of land rent, I still think increasing taxes hurt the people paying rent.
Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by eushebdbsh on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:10AM
(#31095187)
if tax is same for single family as high density
tax will be spread out over lots of people in high density
Re:Economy and distribution of land rents in Singapore (1996)
by pydry on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @01:53PM
(#31100563)
No change short term, long term lower rent.
LVT pressures land owners to use land more productively = more rental units available = lower rents.
It means lower property prices though, and it would push a lot of mortgaged property underwater.
The "weak men cause problems which leads to strong men who solve them" meme is a good illustration of this problem. During peace there is no urgency, people aren't willing to step over certain hard lines that would be beneficial for everyone but are considered a social taboo over the short term. Some maliciously hedonistic individuals think they can sacrifice some benefits to society for personal gain by staying within the hard lines and abusing "oversights" or "loopholes" that the law set. Until people are starting to burst out in anger and start a "revolution" that would be completely unnecessary if people in power just agreed to adopt the peaceful solution immediately. It's not like Georgism is going to eat the rich, instead it upgrades the capitalists into a more respectable "class" as they can no longer be blamed for this type of exploitation. Let socialists and marxists become an extinct species as they have less and less to complain about.
The loophole is the fact that we as a society have decided that we don't have to share our land with new arrivals (migrants and newborns) and that the cost of public infrastructure should not be passed onto the beneficiaries of that infrastructure.