undefined | Better HN

0 pointspydry3y ago0 comments

I dont believe anybody has ever suggested taxing it above 100%.

100% is the level whereby 100% of the profit a landlord makes will be due to the quality of the improvements and 0% will be due to land speculation.

A landlord owning a shitty building in a hot location will lose money. Hopefully a lot. That is by design. They sell up, somebody demolishes it and builds something better and denser and therefore makes a profit.

>Private money already wants to develop their unimproved land

All the private money in the world isnt enough to convince land owners in San Francisco to demolish their low density housing and build high density housing to accomodate all the people who want to live there.

Tax them on the land and not only will they stop NIMBYing private money at every opportunity theyll sell up gladly to property developers to avoid paying their eye watering LVT bill.

0 comments

endisneigh3y ago

> All the private money in the world isnt convincing land owners in San Francisco to demolish and build apartment blocks to accomodate demand.

This has nothing to do with tax. Just change the laws. smh.

Plenty of people want to develop their land in San Francisco. Here's one example: https://reason.com/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-...

Again, private money already wants to develop. Taxation is not necessary. Remove the red tape. Government involvement is the problem not the solution.

pydryOP3y ago

It has everything to do with tax - specifically prop 13 which DEtaxed land and led to California's ridiculously inefficient land use.

Those property owners with $3 million houses will do everything in their power to prop their value up. That means inhibiting high density development. That means pretending a laundromat is "historic".

With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha.

There is no point in NIMBYing to inhibit housing with stupid shit like pretending a laundromat is a historic building. Inhibiting development wont drive up property prices. Change those laws and others will be abused.

But those people with $3 million houses will do ANYTHING to prevent an LVT.

endisneigh3y ago

you make absolutely no sense. the so-called power the NIMBYs have was given to them by the government.

> With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha.

and this is just wrong.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspydry3y ago0 comments

I dont believe anybody has ever suggested taxing it above 100%.

100% is the level whereby 100% of the profit a landlord makes will be due to the quality of the improvements and 0% will be due to land speculation.

>Private money already wants to develop their unimproved land

Tax them on the land and not only will they stop NIMBYing private money at every opportunity theyll sell up gladly to property developers to avoid paying their eye watering LVT bill.

0 comments

endisneigh3y ago

> All the private money in the world isnt convincing land owners in San Francisco to demolish and build apartment blocks to accomodate demand.

This has nothing to do with tax. Just change the laws. smh.

Plenty of people want to develop their land in San Francisco. Here's one example: https://reason.com/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-...

Again, private money already wants to develop. Taxation is not necessary. Remove the red tape. Government involvement is the problem not the solution.

pydryOP3y ago

It has everything to do with tax - specifically prop 13 which DEtaxed land and led to California's ridiculously inefficient land use.

With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha.

But those people with $3 million houses will do ANYTHING to prevent an LVT.

endisneigh3y ago

you make absolutely no sense. the so-called power the NIMBYs have was given to them by the government.

> With a 100% LVT their houses arent worth $3 million theyre worth exactly as much as an equivalent house in Omaha.

and this is just wrong.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse