Let's not and only tax real property upon sale, and get our spending under control.
Yeah it would do wonders for our economy to make farmers and poorer people subsidize the taxes paid by commercial developers and MacMansion owners.
I didn't clicky, but my first guess regarding problems is the promotion of under-development as investment.
Our current system certainly encourages idleness and discourages productive use of the land.
A land tax in place of a property tax would reverse that trend.
Yeah it would do wonders for our economy to make farmers and poorer people subsidize the taxes paid by commercial developers and MacMansion owners.
I think it is silly to equate McMansions with a McDonalds.It is strong towns. Towns tax differently based on location and property.
It is silly to think a McDonalds would be next to a farm.
So you think mansions are next to farms?I think it is silly to equate McMansions with a McDonalds.
I also think it silly to take Georgist clap-trap seriously.
I am pretty sure I didn't say that. Why do you ask?So you think mansions are next to farms?
How exactly is me thinking it is silly to take Georgist clap-trap seriously, a personal attack?The latter I won't discuss since it is a personal attack.
With our current economic woes, I believe it is important for local communities to come up with "new" strategies to promote growth. One of the best ways we can do this is by replacing our property tax system with a land tax system.
How taxes are collected isn't as important as how they are spent.
So you would have no issue with only collecting income taxes from people who have incomes in excess of $400k/yr, as long as the money was spent correctly?
The only ones hurt by such a tax system are speculators who's actions contribute nothing to an economy.
How taxes are collected isn't as important as how they are spent.
It does't make one bit of difference whether it's the private or public sector...nobody can spend your money "better" than you can.
And if you believe that 500+ congresspeople truly can spend your money "better" than you can...then you would truly want to give them all your money. And if you truly wanted to give them all your money...then you wouldn't be here arguing that a land value tax makes more sense than a property tax.
I, for instance, have bought several extra tracts of land adjoining and near my home to protect them from development because I do not want to see the woods cut down and the wildlife displaced.
You may not see the economic value in preservation of what I did, but it is not without value.
The only reason you are promoting this idea is that you think all land is owned by everyone. Yeah, I'm still not interested in promoting that idea.
In general, when we tax something we get less of it.
So whether or not something is taxed...is more important than whether or not we can purchase it in the first place?
i watched the video, and it didn't address the big problem : in the example given, farmers would see their taxes go up 2.5x. i don't consider essential food production as "idle, undeveloped land," and i don't know a lot of independent farmers who could weather the 2.5 x hit. the result of this idea would be a decrease in independent farmers, an increase in major corporate farming, and a decrease in farmland in general, as it's more profitable to do other things with the land. this would not be a net positive; it's not necessarily ideal to allocate land use solely by profitability.
it's a neat idea, but it isn't going to translate to reality.
So the priority should be implementing a land value tax...and then taxpayers should be allowed to choose where their taxes go?If we have a land value tax system individuals would be able to purchase more. See previous link.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?