ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

  • NameTaken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Okay that kind of makes sense. There is a problem though, well three.

    Imagine you live in a small town. Something happens (COVID for instance) and your town becomes popular and your land value goes up. Yesterday your house was worth 100k but now it’s worth 500k+. Your saying those people should essentially be forced out of their homes? To be bought up by rich people?

    Additionally this means only the super rich would be able to afford homes? This tax would essentially mean only the top 1% could have a home and basically give them a free for all on any land they want. Why would we want that?

    Lastly if you increased land tax by that much landlords would have to increase rent prices to offset this? So even with a govt subsidy the renter is still the person paying this increase.

    Honestly I’m intrigued by this idea but once you start thinking about how it would work it falls apart. There is probably some variation of this that could work. Maybe in cities they’ll be an extratax if you don’t build some sort of minimum housing? But this is already pretty similar to just basic property taxes.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      How does this work for land for agricultural use? It’s going to increase the tax burden on producers and increase the cost of food unless I misunderstand how this works and how it’s different than property tax

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Imagine you live in a small town. Something happens (COVID for instance) and your town becomes popular and your land value goes up. Yesterday your house was worth 100k but now it’s worth 500k+. Your saying those people should essentially be forced out of their homes? To be bought up by rich people?

      No, because

      You would only pay tax on the unimproved value of land. You pay no tax on everything built on it.

      Your unimproved land value may increase in that instance, but it wouldn’t suddenly jump up the amount you’re implying, unless the economy catastrophically collapses.

      • NameTaken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s exactly an instance where this would happen. Since the value of the land itself not what’s built on it is valuable in this instance. Look at the value of the land near any ski resort town over the last 10 years.