• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I disagree, rent and price controls are not the correct tool.

    Land value taxes are the correct method to solve that issue.

    • Cactopuses@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      I don’t entirely follow? I’m totally open to alternatives to making sure the money stays where it is, I just don’t immediately understand the mechanism.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        A proper Land value tax is a way of preventing owners from making any money off the appreciation of the value of land while still being profitable to construct or renovate if it adds value. It significantly reduces if not outright eliminates housing as an investment.

        Land value taxes only apply to the value of the land itself, not the buildings, and therefore desirable areas with high land value taxes have a significant incentive to sell and be redeveloped with density which spread a that tax among a larger number of tenants.

        The biggest downside is that it completely destroys existing equity. Which is both how it makes everything affordable again, and is also likely why it won’t pass as a policy for many years.

        • Cactopuses@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          I genuinely like the idea of higher density, as much as I like driving, having a city that’s walkable and with good transit (which density incentives) would be a dream.

          My current city is a sprawling suburb and it’s almost an hour by bus to do a trip that takes 10 minutes by car.

          Also thank you for expanding on this!