Blåhaj Lemmy
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldM to Just Tax Land@lemmy.worldEnglish · 28 days ago

[meme] Stop fighting over scraps and build more

lemmy.world

message-square
6
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • politicalmemes@lemmy.world
  • yimby@lemmy.world
30

[meme] Stop fighting over scraps and build more

lemmy.world

Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldM to Just Tax Land@lemmy.worldEnglish · 28 days ago
message-square
6
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • politicalmemes@lemmy.world
  • yimby@lemmy.world
alert-triangle
You must log in or register to comment.
  • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8    ·
    27 days ago

    There are already millions of empty homes. How about make it illegal to hoard housing and make shelter a right? How about making it illegal to artificially drive up demand by creating false scarcity?

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to buy up housing.

      https://medium.com/@hrnews1/report-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-were-by-private-equity-firms-in-2023-0c0ff591a701

      also, this is a fascinating look at the paradox: vast amounts of housing has been built in the last 40 years, but, growing populations and landlords… https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7    ·
    28 days ago

    Even taking you at your word, just building more houses wouldn’t solve the problem unless the other existing issues are solved first. There are already more than enough houses, several times more unoccupied houses than there are homeless people in fact. If you just make it easier to build more, those new houses will just end up in the same situation as the existing lot: bought up by corporate groups as investments, held ransom by landlords, and generally NOT made available to consumers who want to buy a home.

    So yeah. You’re gonna see some pushback if you’re only making that second argument, all that will do is make the investor class richer without solving any problems.

    • JamesFire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2      ·
      27 days ago

      There are already more than enough houses, several times more unoccupied houses than there are homeless people in fact.

      A huge chunk of them are not where people want/need to live though.

      Vacant housing in Detroit doesn’t help people living in SF

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2    ·
    28 days ago

    Not mutually exclusive

  • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1    ·
    26 days ago

    Hate that deportation is brought up as if it’s an actual problem compared to landlords existing, zoning, and a lack of skilled laborers.

    Immigrants are a net positive to society.

Just Tax Land@lemmy.world

justtaxland@lemmy.world

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !justtaxland@lemmy.world

Land Value Tax

From Wikipedia:

A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.

Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as “the perfect tax” and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]

…

Most taxes distort economic decisions and discourage beneficial economic activity.[14] For example, property taxes discourage construction, maintenance, and repair because taxes increase with improvements. LVT is not based on how land is used. Because the supply of land is essentially fixed, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on landlord expenses. Thus landlords cannot pass LVT to tenants, who would move or rent smaller spaces before absorbing increased rent.[15]

…

LVT’s efficiency has been observed in practice.[18] Fred Foldvary stated that LVT discourages speculative land holding because the tax reflects changes in land value (up and down), encouraging landowners to develop or sell vacant/underused plots in high demand. Foldvary claimed that LVT increases investment in dilapidated inner city areas because improvements don’t cause tax increases. This in turn reduces the incentive to build on remote sites and so reduces urban sprawl.[19] For example, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s LVT has operated since 1975. This policy was credited by mayor Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant downtown structures from around 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500.[20]

LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]

Georgism

Georgism (otherwise known as geoism) is an economic philosophy holding that the economic value derived from land, including natural resources and natural opportunities, should belong equally to all residents of a community, but that people own the value that they create themselves.

Most Georgists support:

  • A broad-based land value taxation scheme, either to mostly or entirely replace existing harmful taxes on income, consumption, and corporations.
  • The social redistribution of this revenue either directly, through a Citizens’ Dividend, or indirectly, through government programs, to citizens.
  • Some (but not all) forms of market intervention by the state.
  • The abolition of tariffs, quotas, patents, and other barriers to trade and commerce.

The overall goal of Georgism can be summarized as follows: to eliminate rent-seeking and monopolism so that the economy can be free, fair, efficient, and prosperous for all.

The Georgist paradigm crosses the left-right political divide. This means that there are statist, anarchist, progressive, and conservative Georgists.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

  • [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
  • [article] for news articles
  • [blog] for any blog-style content
  • [video] for video resources
  • [academic] for academic studies and sources
  • [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
  • [meme] for memes
  • [image] for any non-meme images
  • [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories

Additionally, it is preferred (although not mandatory) to post a brief submission statement in the body of link posts. This is just to give a brief summary and/or description of why you think it’s relevant here. Hopefully this will encourage more discussion in this community.

Recommended Communities

  • !yimby@lemmy.world
  • !fuckcars@lemmy.world
Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 5 users / day
  • 10 users / week
  • 45 users / month
  • 49 users / 6 months
  • 3 local subscribers
  • 178 subscribers
  • 37 Posts
  • 20 Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
  • UI: 0.19.5-kt.3
  • BE: 0.19.5
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org