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.

  • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    30 days ago

    100% tax on the value of land is the policy proposal. It makes economic sense, would let us abolish regressive taxes on labor and sales, would incentivize more abundant housing. Seriously. This is the solution.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      30 days ago

      how?

      a one-time 100% tax on the value of the land?

      how does that change anything except make landowning less accessible to everyone except those born wealthy.

      or is that the point, that you want nobody to own land at all?

      I think I need some more context here

      • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        30 days ago

        Sorry if I was unclear. It would happen continuously, over time. So like monthly or yearly, just like rent to a landlord.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          30 days ago

          no worries, this is a paradigm shift, lots of details to get lost in.

          so you would pay 100% of the value of your property annually?

          how?

          how would those property values be estimated?

          I don’t see how anyone could have a home if they had to pay multiple times their yearly salary every year.

          • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            29 days ago

            So the importantly, you would only pay tax on the value of the land your property is on, not the entirely of the property. Essentially, society owns the land and “rents” it to anybody who wants to use it for housing or a business, and that “rent” would belong to society, either as UBI or as funding for services.

            So if your house is in a really rural area, the land isn’t worth that much, your LVT would likely be quite low. If your house is in a high demand area, like manhattan, the LVT is high, and you should probably build and apartment or something so lots of people can live there. If the land you want to use has a lot of valuable resources under it, it would be expensive, and you have to pay a lot for the right to use it. This is essentially what Norway and Alaska to get as much money as possible out of oil companies and give it to citizens.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              29 days ago

              land not property.

              got it.

              that helps me wrap my mind around it.

              I want to look more into that, especially where it’s already in practice.

              thanks