Comment Re:Why tax work anyway?? (Score 0) 617
Further, to your points:
1. I see land value taxation as the very best way to move us toward a society where low fixed incomes are the exception, not the norm, for our elderly.
2. Yes, perhaps many more of us would choose to live in apartments were they available at a reasonable price, and if our incentives were neutral. In California, for example, Proposition 13 keeps people in oversized well-located homes long after they no longer need to be close to the city to access their jobs. The incentives are just perverse! And the result has been that, while homeownership among the elderly is higher than in most of the rest of the country, among those who are younger, it is much lower than the rest of the country.
Apartments tend to be well-located, in the center of things, so that one can walk to the services one needs, or take public transportation. As we move into a future where energy supplies are going to become increasingly expensive, we need to keep our constraints in mind. As people age, they may not want to take care of a single family home, or may not be able to take care of it. Make it easy to move to a more suitable home. Good for the older person, good for the younger families who need housing appropriate to their family size.
3. The wealthy among us are often those who own not only their own single family home (or two, or three) but also a bit of commercial real estate. Sometimes it is where they conduct their business, but often it is simply their source of income, where a series of tenants conduct their business, until they post the "lost our lease" sign, or the "going out of business" or the "under new management" or "opening soon." The landlord keeps getting paid. The entrepreneur struggles under the strain of paying that rent, because in order for his business to have a chance, he needs a good site -- location, location, location -- where he will be accessible to potential customers and to employees.
Then we tax him. We don't tax the landlord much, but we sure sock it to the entrepreneur who is paying the rent. He pays twice, first to the landlord, and then in the form of income taxes and wage taxes and such. What do those taxes support? The kinds of spending that allow his landlord to charge him more next year, without providing anything additional in the way of amenities or services. And then we allow the landlord to depreciate not just the building, but often the value of the land, which of course is not wearing out a bit -- and when he sells the property, the next owner starts depreciating it from a higher rate! Who loses? We the people, the wage earners, who pay a portion of our wages to make this all possible.
No wonder we have poverty and people struggling to support their families. No wonder we don't have as many jobs as we need, or jobs that pay well. The landlord is collecting his free lunch, but it isn't free to society. Someone must pay for it. And we are!
1. I see land value taxation as the very best way to move us toward a society where low fixed incomes are the exception, not the norm, for our elderly.
2. Yes, perhaps many more of us would choose to live in apartments were they available at a reasonable price, and if our incentives were neutral. In California, for example, Proposition 13 keeps people in oversized well-located homes long after they no longer need to be close to the city to access their jobs. The incentives are just perverse! And the result has been that, while homeownership among the elderly is higher than in most of the rest of the country, among those who are younger, it is much lower than the rest of the country.
Apartments tend to be well-located, in the center of things, so that one can walk to the services one needs, or take public transportation. As we move into a future where energy supplies are going to become increasingly expensive, we need to keep our constraints in mind. As people age, they may not want to take care of a single family home, or may not be able to take care of it. Make it easy to move to a more suitable home. Good for the older person, good for the younger families who need housing appropriate to their family size.
3. The wealthy among us are often those who own not only their own single family home (or two, or three) but also a bit of commercial real estate. Sometimes it is where they conduct their business, but often it is simply their source of income, where a series of tenants conduct their business, until they post the "lost our lease" sign, or the "going out of business" or the "under new management" or "opening soon." The landlord keeps getting paid. The entrepreneur struggles under the strain of paying that rent, because in order for his business to have a chance, he needs a good site -- location, location, location -- where he will be accessible to potential customers and to employees.
Then we tax him. We don't tax the landlord much, but we sure sock it to the entrepreneur who is paying the rent. He pays twice, first to the landlord, and then in the form of income taxes and wage taxes and such. What do those taxes support? The kinds of spending that allow his landlord to charge him more next year, without providing anything additional in the way of amenities or services. And then we allow the landlord to depreciate not just the building, but often the value of the land, which of course is not wearing out a bit -- and when he sells the property, the next owner starts depreciating it from a higher rate! Who loses? We the people, the wage earners, who pay a portion of our wages to make this all possible.
No wonder we have poverty and people struggling to support their families. No wonder we don't have as many jobs as we need, or jobs that pay well. The landlord is collecting his free lunch, but it isn't free to society. Someone must pay for it. And we are!
