Am I the only one thinking about the folks who played by the current rules their whole lives? Just feels like 'sorry, new game!' could be a rough ride for many, even if the destination is 'better'.
Any solution to a problem that fundamentally comes down to undue privilege for incumbency, is gonna harm incumbents some way or another. I don't think there's much you can do about that, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't solve the problem.
Still, you're right that you need to think about how to avoid harming those interests in a way that's actively unfair or overly disruptive. I don't think people talk about this very much, because not many people are seriously talking about solving the problems LVT targets.
E.g. everyone says "tackle the housing crisis, build more houses!" but very few people actually seem interested in doing anything that would have any downside at all. At least with e.g. climate change people say "we have to make some sacrifices".
Anyway I guess the basic solution has to be that you solve the problem very slowly so people have a chance to adjust to the new regime?
No. Obviously the tax would be phased in over a long period of time and for political reasons probably include some recompense to current owners. But what, are we doomed for all time because of decisions made in the past? There will always be a new cohort of people who played by the rules of the current system and oh won't it be unfair to them. What about the people who are suffering because of the current system?
Obviously?! Phasing in changes over long periods would solve lots of problems - at usually low cost to society it seems. You could - if anyone cared - educate the population on the time frame for the deployment, and you could - if anyone cared - advertise the time-value of the change, for example on the valuation of property before, through and after the change. And things would be fine.
But the reality of things seems to be that a politician will be in power for just a few years. So that either they need the change to go in effect so they can claim the deed and the effects (alleged - because who cares if it's real?), or they prefer the change to happen just after they have left (so the change / effect can be blamed on the next guy? or can be postponed should they get re-elected.)
Nobody (?) looks to make the change "fair" to the population. There is no electoral value in that.
This shows up everywhere: agricultural subsidies, tax rate changes, property tax changes, construction / permitting / zoning changes, usage of an area (similar to zoning see construction or extension of an airport and residential nuisance), planned future freeway path, legalization or criminalization of any activity, climate change rules. So that some industries become perpetually on the lookout for the next cycle (mining, oil, finance?), while others constantly get away with claiming unawareness (zoning, permitting?)
It's even worse than that. LVT, especially when combined with migration, just evicts the people who grew up in a place. It's the fastest way to create the soulless places everyone complains about.
Does it really? In LVT conditions, aren't people who utilize land ineffectively incentivized to sell it to someone who'd build more dense dwellings on it? Maybe they'd strike a deal - pay less tax, swap a SFH with an apartment on the same lot.
bjackman|9 months ago
Still, you're right that you need to think about how to avoid harming those interests in a way that's actively unfair or overly disruptive. I don't think people talk about this very much, because not many people are seriously talking about solving the problems LVT targets.
E.g. everyone says "tackle the housing crisis, build more houses!" but very few people actually seem interested in doing anything that would have any downside at all. At least with e.g. climate change people say "we have to make some sacrifices".
Anyway I guess the basic solution has to be that you solve the problem very slowly so people have a chance to adjust to the new regime?
kaibee|9 months ago
creer|8 months ago
Obviously?! Phasing in changes over long periods would solve lots of problems - at usually low cost to society it seems. You could - if anyone cared - educate the population on the time frame for the deployment, and you could - if anyone cared - advertise the time-value of the change, for example on the valuation of property before, through and after the change. And things would be fine.
But the reality of things seems to be that a politician will be in power for just a few years. So that either they need the change to go in effect so they can claim the deed and the effects (alleged - because who cares if it's real?), or they prefer the change to happen just after they have left (so the change / effect can be blamed on the next guy? or can be postponed should they get re-elected.)
Nobody (?) looks to make the change "fair" to the population. There is no electoral value in that.
This shows up everywhere: agricultural subsidies, tax rate changes, property tax changes, construction / permitting / zoning changes, usage of an area (similar to zoning see construction or extension of an airport and residential nuisance), planned future freeway path, legalization or criminalization of any activity, climate change rules. So that some industries become perpetually on the lookout for the next cycle (mining, oil, finance?), while others constantly get away with claiming unawareness (zoning, permitting?)
notahacker|9 months ago
6510|9 months ago
lantry|9 months ago
[deleted]
msgodel|9 months ago
Klaster_1|9 months ago