« First « Previous Comments 73 - 85 of 85 Search these comments
Here's a bit more about the land value tax (LVT) in Hong Kong and Singapore:The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05
Also, Hong Kong government had a long history of auctioning government land to the highest bidder
Landlords who build or maintain buildings are providing a service to the public. I don't think that's scummy at all. It's valuable work.
My point is only that merely owning land is not a service to anyone.
There will be no land value tax.
I know mine is (a parasite).
Raised our rent $200 (14% increase, Las Vegas) after 2 1/2 years of on time payments with no calls for anything.
Reason given by PM - rents are really going up, with a tone of amazement, slight glee.
Place is not premium, by any stretch of the imagination. With a large desert scrub backyard and two pets, I might as well live outdoors with all the dirt dragged in. .
SFace saysThere will be no land value tax.
@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.
SFace saysThere will be no land value tax.
@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.
LVT does not work. In places you think it works, property prices is at puke level.
Note that salaries in Hong Kong and Singapore are also off the charts.
But the economy is much better for everyone (except big landowners) under a land value tax. The tax is non-destructive of work and commerce.
« First « Previous Comments 73 - 85 of 85 Search these comments
To be fair, the construction and maintenance of a building is productive work, so rent on a building should not be taxed at all.
But rent from mere non-productive ownership of land should be taxed at 100%. Owning land benefits no one and produces nothing.
Once we as a society learn to distinguish between productive work and non-productive rent-seeking, we will be much better off. But it's slow going. People seem remarkably resistant to the obvious fact that the building and the land are very different entities.