I'm not sure I see why taxing incremental zoning or adding inclusionary reqs is characterizable as inherently distortionary (except insofar as any tax besides perhaps LVT is), or a tax on production. In many cases, aren't they presumed to be capitalized into the land value?
-
-
Replying to @housing_wiki @yimbywiki and
Assuming they remain somewhat consistent. I don't get Mott gets his big pronouncement about taxing upzoning as taxing work and causing problems. Cities in Brazil do both, very successfully. I repeat: land in cities increases in value on par with city size.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @drschweitzer @yimbywiki and
Taxing land and not buildings is NOT a tax on individual work even if developers don't like it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @drschweitzer @yimbywiki and
That isn’t what I meant to say. It’s fine to include improvements in prop tax basis. My basic point is that we should tax wealth (ie total value) rather than production (Just new value). We should be taxing old $1.5mm SFRs the same as new $1.5mm four-plexes.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mottsmith @drschweitzer and
Now you're tying
#sb827 to the most major shift in property taxation ever proposed that may render many Californians unable to continue to afford to live in their homes.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rihallix @mottsmith and
Ok, so let's say my total prop value is $850K. The house is worth is $150K, which means I'm sitting on about $700 of land value. A property tax taxes all $850K. A land value tax tax would take the $750K instead. How is that SOOOOOO CATASTROPHIC?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drschweitzer @mottsmith and
Same overall prop tax rev needs to be generated. Imagine two identical $700k pieces of land: one has a SFH, one a 10 unit apt. Burden on the SFH is 10x that of the SFH to generate the same overall prop tax revenue. People will be taxed out of their homes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rihallix @mottsmith and
Taxed out of his home? Or they have the incentive to improve the property to ak unit-apartment building, which causes the housing stock to go from 11 units to 20 units, thereby housing 9 more people (I guess those 9 people don't count as much as the 1 homeowner)
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @drschweitzer @rihallix and
or to bring focus to specific Q of
#SB827 which prompted thread (and on which our storify/wikify of this convo may tie to): how valid are the SF Supervisor's charges, that 827, in current form, fails to appropriately "recapture value" or allow funding of housing?#HousingBowl1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @housing_wiki @yimbywiki and
1/ If you strictly strictly define "value capture" as related solely to capturing land value appreciation from public investments, then it seems that CA generally doesn't do this now, and SB 827 would maintain the status quo in this regard. ...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
(It can’t do this in an across-the-board way without Prop. 13 reform.) Prop. 13 is basically a negative value land tax. Existing property owners capture value for doing nothing.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @SHGraves29 and
sorry, land value tax. My bad.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.