| |
| ▲ | howunfortunate a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I would imagine that if Disneyland were built next door, that might be in the cards regardless of the tax situation... It's just a reality of life that not every homeowner can possibly be entitled to fully control what gets done with the land around them, and that's going to cause some friction. It's a difficult job to navigate who gets to decide what, while still enabling necessary development. LVT is just one of the more elegant ways to do this. | | |
| ▲ | rhines a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not a big LVT fan - pushing for maximally productive use of land is going to result in displacing people, displacing small businesses, displacing artistic/cultural/environmental spaces, etc. I would much rather see an overall assets tax that scales with the value of the assets. That would incentivize more smaller businesses, long-term thinking, and wealth distribution. It would hit big corporations in the same way a LVT would, forcing them to be more and more productive with their assets the more they have, without pricing out smaller entities. |
| |
| ▲ | Gareth321 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Through no plan of your own, you now have $1M - tax free. I am currently playing the world's smallest violin. | | |
| ▲ | williamdclt 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think that there's something about LVT, but your dismissal is very shallow and why it's not been implemented so far. I don't _want_ $1M, I want to live in my house that I bought and lived in for years. Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think some extra taxes on expensive land is the red line you appear to believe it is. People who own expensive land have many options the rest of the world could only dream of, including reverse mortgages. Meaning no one is actually forcing anyone off their land. They're just being asked to pay some extra taxes. If you believe tax is theft, I can see why this is agitating, but I do not share that view. | | |
| ▲ | williamdclt 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do not share that "taxation is theft" view either. And I agree that owning expensive land is a privileged position. But the concern of being pushed out of one's home because of an increase in tax is real, "just sell it" is not a viable solution, houses and locations are not fungible. Maybe reverse mortgages are the answer, I'm not sure, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgable about this. |
| |
| ▲ | howunfortunate 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation. It doesn't need to be. "No one can ever build any new developments" is also a very negative situation for everyone.* The goal is to balance these tradeoffs, and it can't just be sunshine and roses for everyone all the time. *It's also basically our present situation, which is why housing is so absurdly expensive. | |
| ▲ | rangestransform 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do you believe that you should be allowed to preserve your present lifestyle in amber at a (very minor incremental) cost to economic prosperity for all of society? |
| |
| ▲ | jjav 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This assumes a house is nothing but an investment, like a bunch of stock. This is far from reality. A home is family and life to most people, nobody cares if it went up or down in value, a home is about our life. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My comment was made with the lens of a regular home that people live in. | |
| ▲ | camel_Snake 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > nobody cares if it went up or down in value If only this were true, we wouldn't have homeowners constantly fighting against new development or construction. Many homeowners treat their primary residence as an investment. |
|
|
|
