Ethics of Real Estate Investment, NIMYism and the Housing Crisis

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I do, minus the Washington part.

This also sounds like an argument as to why the government is inherently inefficient. Little oversight and accountability. Normally a private company that is terrible to deal with loses customers and can either go out of business or correct. The government doesn't go out of business and rarely corrects, they just ask for a bigger budget.

I'm not advocating that everything be replaced by the private sector or that it's not good to subsidize certain things. I think it's good that a little old lady in a rural town can get mail for 60 cents, but that doesn't excuse the inefficiency in the rest of the system. It was a pretty big deal a few years ago, truthfully don't know if it's still going on, but in certain places the usps was over staffed, and in other places it was understaffed. The government couldn't just transfer workers so their solution was to take the employees in the over staffed location and have them sit in an empty room for the duration of their shift, and hire new employees for the understaffed locations.

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

 

 

 

 

I do, minus the Washington part.

 

This also sounds like an argument as to why the government is inherently inefficient. Little oversight and accountability. Normally a private company that is terrible to deal with loses customers and can either go out of business or correct. The government doesn't go out of business and rarely corrects, they just ask for a bigger budget.

 

How much oversight did Bernie Madoff's company have? Or any of those crypoto companies that crashed and burned recently? I have trouble believing that all government is evil and incompetent that all private industry is good and does wonderful things for their customers.

The government may not go out of business, but private companies sometimes do go out of business and take their customer's money to the Bahamas.

Who do the customer's cry to when a private company steals their assets? Why, the Government, of course. Nobody else cares.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

The difference being one is a voluntary relationship. 

The other comes with participation or a gun to the face, your choice.

Having worked with many government agencies including the USPS, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and multiple levels of state and municipal government, they are by far the most inefficient organization I have ever dealt with. At the local level, it's not too bad, but at the federal level, it makes you shake your head in disgust. Basically, the bigger the budget the bigger the waste. 

Oh, and the government doesn't care either unless it gets them on the national news. 

I work for a private company.  Nearly all of our work is for state agencies.  At my previous employer, some of it was for federal agencies, including DoD.

The amount of money wasted just in misguided efforts to stop wasting money is pretty staggering.  Especially at the federal level.  Let alone how much money is wasted to meet political agendas that are entirely outside the programmatic brief of the project at hand.

[edit]  For what it's worth, our DMV is awesome.  And I'm also in the "who else is gonna do all that for a 60¢ stamp" crowd.

Toyman! said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Oh, and the government doesn't care either unless it gets them on the national news. 

I know from experience that this is NOT the case where I used to work. I strongly disagree with this statement.

At any rate. Here we are with another one of these "not political" political arguments that continue to go on here. My blood pressure is up. I want to put my fist through a wall. I need to stay away from these threads. Hell. Maybe I just need to stay away from this board.

I am stepping out of here for a while. Carry on as usual.

Opti said:

Id challenge anyone who things government agencies arent terribly inefficient to find a government agency they think performs well or better than the private sector. This has to do with costs, lead times, customer service, and the ability to get problems solved.

Private health care in the US vs. other first-world health care. The US' health care system is super sweet if you really hate waiting and would be OK with a 6+ digit bill, but generally worse for everyone who isn't an impatient billionaire. Efficiency with money is through the floor.

USPS vs. FedEx or UPS. Americans can feel good about that one! When's the last time the USPS did a note & dash or ghost delivery on you?

News/journalism. The BBC, CBC and NPR are top-notch. A private publication is among the best if it's in the same league, but the vast majority are dogE36 M3 in comparison. Although you could argue that some of the worst news and journalism is done by governments as well, for certain values of "news" and "journalism" (RT).

There aren't many other industries where the two overlap...government has a better record in science but the private sector, while churning out almost all of the junk papers in existence, can do just as well if it wants to. Exxon secretly had global warming all figured out in-house in the '70s after all.

https://www.lincolninst.edu/pt-br/publications/articles/2022-04-report-taxing-land-detroit-homeowners-development

Reforming Detroit’s property tax system by taxing land at a higher rate than buildings would help to revive the local economy and reduce tax bills for nearly every homeowner, according to a new study from the nonprofit Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 
 
With the lowest property values of any large U.S. city and some of the highest property tax rates, Detroit is caught in a decades-long cycle of rising tax rates that still fail to generate enough revenue. In the absence of strong public services, high property taxes increase owner costs, reduce property values, and increase the costs of repair and redevelopment, creating a drag on economic recovery. 

Like many economically distressed cities, Detroit copes with this challenge by offering generous tax abatements for new development and for some homeowners. Abatements relieve excess costs and temporarily raise property values, but only a small set of residents and new businesses qualify. This leaves high—sometimes destabilizing—tax bills in place for long-term owners. While high taxes remain on most homes and businesses, inclusive and lasting incentives for reinvestment are absent. 

A higher tax rate for land than for structures—known as “split-rate” because there are two different tax rates—would address the problem more effectively and distribute the benefits more equitably.  

The new study, Split-Rate Property Taxation in Detroit: Findings and Recommendations, finds that taxing land at five times the rate for buildings would result in lower tax bills for 96 percent of homeowners, with an average savings of about 18 percent. Under a revenue-neutral reform, tax savings would be fully offset by tax increases on vacant and underutilized property. 

“By adopting a split-rate property tax, Detroit can make its tax system both more efficient and more equitable,” said John Anderson, an economist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and lead author of the study. “Efficiency is enhanced by removing the tax-related barriers to capital improvements and development. Equity is enhanced by a reduction in taxes for the vast majority of residential homeowners.” 
 
“Splitting the property tax provides long-time Detroiters with the tax relief that new businesses and residents already receive,” said co-author Nick Allen, former manager of strategy and policy for the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation and now a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Our study shows that it is an effective, immediate way to permanently reduce burdens on overtaxed households and restore property wealth. It’s not enough, but it is a required step towards racially equitable recovery.” 

In addition, a split-rate tax increases the cost of holding vacant land and reduces the cost of developing it, or of renovating deteriorated buildings. Reduced tax burdens and accelerated investment lead to an average 12 percent increase in residential property value and a 20 percent increase for commercial property. In a supporting technical paper, the project team also found that the proposed 18 percent reduction in residential taxes would reduce residential tax foreclosures by at least 9 percent. 

“Implementation of a split-rate tax in Detroit offers an opportunity to strengthen the property tax system by increasing efficiency, and reducing property tax inequities and tax foreclosure,” said Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore, a co-author of the study. 

Commissioned by Invest Detroit with support from The Kresge Foundation, the study analyzes data from municipalities in Pennsylvania that have implemented split-rate taxes, as well as real estate and property tax data from Detroit. In addition to Anderson, Allen, and Skidmore, the study’s co-authors include Fernanda Alfaro of Michigan State University, Andrew Hanson of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Zackary Hawley of Texas Christian University, Dusan Paredes of Northern Catholic University in Chile, and Zhou Yang of Robert Morris University. 

“If we are to continue the momentum of Detroit's positive, equitable growth, we must transform our property tax structure to alleviate the burden on majority Black homeowners and local developers,” said Dave Blaszkiewicz, president and CEO of Invest Detroit. “This report provides a solution that accomplishes that while also disincentivizing blighted and underutilized properties that hinder Detroit's growth.” 

“With this analysis, Invest Detroit has elevated an equitable approach to taxation that can bring much-needed relief to tax-burdened Detroiters while encouraging investment and growth. This is a timely idea that addresses an urgent concern, and the highly regarded Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has now provided a solid framework for community discussions,” said Wendy Lewis Jackson, managing director of Kresge’s Detroit Program. 

The team also produced three technical papers to support the study: “Assessment of Property Tax Reductions on Tax Delinquency, Tax Foreclosure, and Home Ownership”; “Split-Rate Taxation and Business Establishment Location Evidence from the Pennsylvania Experience”; and “Split-Rate Taxation: Impacts on Tax Base,” all published by the Lincoln Institute. 

The study is available for download on the Lincoln Institute’s website: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/split-rate-property-taxation-in-detroit 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I do, minus the Washington part.

This also sounds like an argument as to why the government is inherently inefficient. Little oversight and accountability. Normally a private company that is terrible to deal with loses customers and can either go out of business or correct. The government doesn't go out of business and rarely corrects, they just ask for a bigger budget.

 

How much oversight did Bernie Madoff's company have? Or any of those crypoto companies that crashed and burned recently? I have trouble believing that all government is evil and incompetent that all private industry is good and does wonderful things for their customers.

The government may not go out of business, but private companies sometimes do go out of business and take their customer's money to the Bahamas.

Who do the customer's cry to when a private company steals their assets? Why, the Government, of course. Nobody else cares.

I never said all government is evil. I said its all innefficient, with the concession that there is an exception to every rule. I also never made any claims that all the private sector is good.

I said the private sector is voluntary, as in i can chose not to patronize bad or inneficient companies and I can absolutely choose which companies I invest in. Yes the private sector sometimes involves investors money being ran off with.

The government ALWAYS involves peoples money being ran off with (wasted), and I have no say on what agency I get to invest in or patronize. Its also a pretty terrible argument that since sometimes peoples money gets ran off with in the private sector that it somehow justifies the waste in the federal government, because the government routinely wastes VAST INCONCEIVABLE amounts of money with little to no accountability, in fact many times it results in an even LARGER budget the next fiscal year.

Im not a utopianist that thinks the extremes of any ideological or political belief actually works (as im in not advocating for the abolishment of the federal government or think that the free market solves every problem), but I dont think its controversial to say the federal government is inherently wasteful, and trying to eliminate some of the waste and inefficiencies would be better for pretty much all Americans. I also dont think its that controversial to say the federal government is taxing, regulating, and inflating the middle class into oblivion. They take a pretty huge chunk of the value of my productivity right off the top and then get me on the back end, by taxing literally every single thing that I do.

pheller said:

https://www.lincolninst.edu/pt-br/publications/articles/2022-04-report-taxing-land-detroit-homeowners-development

In addition, a split-rate tax [...] reduces the cost of developing it, or of renovating deteriorated buildings.

This is purest, deepest bullE36 M3.

It does literally nothing to decrease development costs.  All it does is make holding vacant property cost more.

For about the fifth time in this thread, I'm forced to quote myself.

Duke said:

It's like tariffs:

Tariffs don't make your domestic products more competitive.  They make imported products less competitive.  The result is higher prices paid by the consumer.

Raising taxes on vacant land doesn't magically make development more economically viable.  It makes not developing vacant land less economically viable.

There is nothing about that equation that results in cheaper housing.

 

Duke said:

pheller said:

https://www.lincolninst.edu/pt-br/publications/articles/2022-04-report-taxing-land-detroit-homeowners-development

In addition, a split-rate tax [...] reduces the cost of developing it, or of renovating deteriorated buildings.

This is purest, deepest bullE36 M3.

It does literally nothing to decrease development costs.  All it does is make holding vacant property cost more.

It reduces future tax burden of developing or renovating buildings.

Typically however, that is not a concern of the developer because those costs are passed onto future owner/buyers or tenants. 

In reply to pheller :

This sounds like a really complex way to say less taxes is good for everyone.

Opti said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I do, minus the Washington part.

This also sounds like an argument as to why the government is inherently inefficient. Little oversight and accountability. Normally a private company that is terrible to deal with loses customers and can either go out of business or correct. The government doesn't go out of business and rarely corrects, they just ask for a bigger budget.

 

How much oversight did Bernie Madoff's company have? Or any of those crypoto companies that crashed and burned recently? I have trouble believing that all government is evil and incompetent that all private industry is good and does wonderful things for their customers.

The government may not go out of business, but private companies sometimes do go out of business and take their customer's money to the Bahamas.

Who do the customer's cry to when a private company steals their assets? Why, the Government, of course. Nobody else cares.

I never said all government is evil. I said its all innefficient, with the concession that there is an exception to every rule. I also never made any claims that all the private sector is good.

I said the private sector is voluntary, as in i can chose not to patronize bad or inneficient companies and I can absolutely choose which companies I invest in. Yes the private sector sometimes involves investors money being ran off with.

The government ALWAYS involves peoples money being ran off with (wasted), and I have no say on what agency I get to invest in or patronize. Its also a pretty terrible argument that since sometimes peoples money gets ran off with in the private sector that it somehow justifies the waste in the federal government, because the government routinely wastes VAST INCONCEIVABLE amounts of money with little to no accountability, in fact many times it results in an even LARGER budget the next fiscal year.

Im not a utopianist that thinks the extremes of any ideological or political belief actually works (as im in not advocating for the abolishment of the federal government or think that the free market solves every problem), but I dont think its controversial to say the federal government is inherently wasteful, and trying to eliminate some of the waste and inefficiencies would be better for pretty much all Americans. I also dont think its that controversial to say the federal government is taxing, regulating, and inflating the middle class into oblivion. They take a pretty huge chunk of the value of my productivity right off the top and then get me on the back end, by taxing literally every single thing that I do.

So what's your point? Get rid of all government because you don't want to pay for it? Are roads a waste of money? Is the post office? Is the fire department a waste of money? What about the court system? Waste of money? Law enforcement? Privatize it?  Buy a gun? And why do I have to pay for schools when I have no kids? I pay a lot for schools.

You guys talk a good game. God knows your supporters spend a lot of money on think tanks and media. But in the real world, you are just advocating some kind of Fantasy Utopia for billionaires.

Opti said:

In reply to pheller :

This sounds like a really complex way to say less taxes is good for everyone.

With one exception that Duke reiterates - it will make holding vacant land less of a profitable investment. 

There are ways of doing it so that existing vacant land holders don't see a rapid increase in taxes. Usually it's a slower, phased approach, where vacant land millage rates are increased while structure/personal property millage rates are reduced. You pay $5000 for 2 acres vacant land, I pay $10,000 for 1 acres land+house, after 10 years those are reversed. 

Revenue remains the same. 

GameboyRMH said:

 

USPS vs. FedEx or UPS. Americans can feel good about that one! When's the last time the USPS did a note & dash or ghost delivery on you?

 

Last week actually. Actually they lost something recently for us and never ring the doorbell. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

You sure do have a hard time understanding when I literally type out ""im not advocating for the abolishment of the federal government" and you quote it.

Im advocating for a reduction in the amount of waste in the federal government.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

USPS loses more packages or just doesnt deliver them more often than I have problems with UPS, not that I hold any of them in a very high regard.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

 Yeah, America isn't ready for any 3rd party, least of all when they're screaming furious at their own presidential candidate for being pro-driver's licenses like they did. Gary deserved better.

Anyway... I'm gonna try to keep Boost from building a patio

Boost_Crazy said:

I wasn't offended by you selecting the Huffington Post as "evidence," I was disappointed.

Disappointed in what? You keep demanding I know some personal opinion of yours lmao

I was disappointed that you included an extremely biased highly political source. I was disappointed when I thought you did that on purpose. We can throw highly biased,  misleading links back and forth all day. This is the internet, I can find a report supporting any opinion on any topic. But being a responsible poster, I check my sources. Even if the info is good, I don't use controversial sources, especially if I believe there is plenty of good info available. But since you had to ask, I'm more disappointed that you couldn't figure that out on your own. You shouldn't need to know my personal feelings. Vet your own sources. 

I never said I didn't read your links. I said I didn't vet them. I don't know to what degree they can be trusted.

If you opened any of them, you'd see they're written by an Ivy League professor, multiple financial institutions, the Fed, and multiple news agencies.

Are you really suggesting that none of the above can be biased or misleading? I read through quite a bit. But it's not my job to go through your links and figure out what you are trying to say. As I pointed out prior, your links leave big holes in the story. If you want to share links to support what you have written, fine- but you said very little, just posed links. I'm not so sure that you even read your own links.

I'm not defending the banks. But all of your linked research starts at the banks and skips the part where people willingly signed on the dotted line. Not only do you appear to skip over that very important part, you stated that they were preyed upon. How do you get to a conclusion if you don't even know where you are starting from? 

You started commenting because another person claimed they were signing people for loans they couldn't afford, because said poor would call them "racist". That person hasn't posted since, for some reason you stepped up to defend them, I suppose.

I responded to you because I thought it ironic that you stated you wouldn't stand for BS, then linked BS. I also didn't appreciate the way you insulted the subprime borrowers (minorities you called them) by insinuating they were victims too stupid to know better. I didn't defend the other poster at all. I didn't see any need to. They were to the point and accurate. 

The phrase "all of your linked research starts at the banks and skips the part where people willingly signed on the dotted line" is pretty berkeleying funny tbh, it's like asking why a study of a car crash starts with the time the driver spent at the bar. 
 

You used my analogy that I posted earlier. It works for my argument, not yours. Um, thanks? The collapse (details of the actual car accident) would not have been a factor if the drunk drivers (subprime borrowers) hadn't driven away from the bar (banks) while drunk. The drunk drivers knew that that driving was not a good idea, but they get a say in their outcome. The bar should have known better and been more responsible, but when they tried to cut people off, the government stepped in and determined that many of the patrons were underserved. After a while, the bar realized that they were making lots of money serving people who had too much to drink. Since the government decided to absolve them of the responsibility of deciding who had too much too much to drink, they expanded the bar and sold as much as possible. 

While it's debatable that the recession was caused by the removal of Glass-Steagall in 1995 (linked from Wiki since the note section is decent), fact is that banks began wafting the idea of the American dream of home ownership to anyone regardless of their ability to pay and treated those subprime mortgages as a security. If you're willing to learn, I know of a good video detailing the burst.

You seem to be confusing factors with causes. Is the above a factor? Yes. The cause? No. The goal of the American dream of home ownership for everyone was political idea- by the adminstrations of both parties in the '90's and 2000's. You can tap dance around the semantics of it, but the banks were forced to make bad loans. Their solution- subprime mortgage backed securities. Not just the traditional banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were big time players in sub prime MBS's. The MSB's were the ultimate cause of the failure as you pointed out, but they were near the end of the chain, not the beginning. It can be argued that they wouldn't have existed but not for government policy. 

Again, since you never answered the question- who were the victims? 

Why are you so bound and determined for an enemy? Because frankly, everyone was a victim of it since it affected literally everyone on some scale. 

Frankly, I can't tell if you just have trouble communicating, or if you are intentionally flippant. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't make it easy. 
 

I disagree that everyone was a victim. Maybe it's regional- I live in an area that was hit the hardest. But I saw many, many people who got to live in homes well beyond their means for pennies on the dollar. They "bought" homes they couldn't afford. Many with zero down. Mortgage payments cost less than rent on an equivalent home. When they fell behind, they either 1) sold the house for more than they owed and made a profit or 2) They stopped paying and lived in the home without paying a dime until evicted. Often for months, sometimes years. Others who were not yet behind but in danger received government bail outs to keep them in the home. How were they victims? 

Opti said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

USPS loses more packages or just doesnt deliver them more often than I have problems with UPS, not that I hold any of them in a very high regard.

I've actually had a package shipped back to me with insufficient postage on a package I had them weigh and put postage on. No lie. Then was told I would have to pay the full price all over again because there are no refunds with the USPS. 

Boost_Crazy said:

I was disappointed that you included an extremely biased highly political source. I was disappointed when I thought you did that on purpose. We can throw highly biased,  misleading links back and forth all day. This is the internet, I can find a report supporting any opinion on any topic. But being a responsible poster, I check my sources. Even if the info is good, I don't use controversial sources, especially if I believe there is plenty of good info available. But since you had to ask, I'm more disappointed that you couldn't figure that out on your own. You shouldn't need to know my personal feelings. Vet your own sources. 

Are you really suggesting that none of the above can be biased or misleading? I read through quite a bit. But it's not my job to go through your links and figure out what you are trying to say. As I pointed out prior, your links leave big holes in the story. If you want to share links to support what you have written, fine- but you said very little, just posed links. I'm not so sure that you even read your own links.

I responded to you because I thought it ironic that you stated you wouldn't stand for BS, then linked BS. I also didn't appreciate the way you insulted the subprime borrowers (minorities you called them) by insinuating they were victims too stupid to know better. I didn't defend the other poster at all. I didn't see any need to. They were to the point and accurate. 

You used my analogy that I posted earlier. It works for my argument, not yours. Um, thanks? The collapse (details of the actual car accident) would not have been a factor if the drunk drivers (subprime borrowers) hadn't driven away from the bar (banks) while drunk. The drunk drivers knew that that driving was not a good idea, but they get a say in their outcome. The bar should have known better and been more responsible, but when they tried to cut people off, the government stepped in and determined that many of the patrons were underserved. After a while, the bar realized that they were making lots of money serving people who had too much to drink. Since the government decided to absolve them of the responsibility of deciding who had too much too much to drink, they expanded the bar and sold as much as possible. 

You seem to be confusing factors with causes. Is the above a factor? Yes. The cause? No. The goal of the American dream of home ownership for everyone was political idea- by the adminstrations of both parties in the '90's and 2000's. You can tap dance around the semantics of it, but the banks were forced to make bad loans. Their solution- subprime mortgage backed securities. Not just the traditional banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were big time players in sub prime MBS's. The MSB's were the ultimate cause of the failure as you pointed out, but they were near the end of the chain, not the beginning. It can be argued that they wouldn't have existed but not for government policy. 

Frankly, I can't tell if you just have trouble communicating, or if you are intentionally flippant. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't make it easy. 

I disagree that everyone was a victim. Maybe it's regional- I live in an area that was hit the hardest. But I saw many, many people who got to live in homes well beyond their means for pennies on the dollar. They "bought" homes they couldn't afford. Many with zero down. Mortgage payments cost less than rent on an equivalent home. When they fell behind, they either 1) sold the house for more than they owed and made a profit or 2) They stopped paying and lived in the home without paying a dime until evicted. Often for months, sometimes years. Others who were not yet behind but in danger received government bail outs to keep them in the home. How were they victims? 

This is a lot of words from someone who still hasn't proven anything.

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

You sure do have a hard time understanding when I literally type out ""im not advocating for the abolishment of the federal government" and you quote it.

Im advocating for a reduction in the amount of waste in the federal government.

Define waste. That's the hard part, isn't it? Before you do anything you have to define what an agency's job is and what results you are looking for.

Then you have to audit. From the top down review supervisiory positions and decide what is needed and what is dead wood. Then go down the ladder from there. This is a lot of work, but not anything hundreds of organizations haven't done before. You could hire consultants to do this, but then you are taking a chance that somebody will think that hiring a consultant is a waste.

Or you can try the Elon Musk method. Fire 75% of the people and then start hiring back as needed. Make employees buy their own toilet paper.

Maybe we really don't need a Department of Education in Washington and 50 more of them in each and every state. Maybe we could condense Homeland Security. I am open to suggestions if it will make things more efficient and more effective. Maybe we could outsource the DMV and standardize it across all States. Sometimes privatizing is more expensive than doing it in house. Sometimes not. You have to track everything, crunch the numbers and figure it out.

You can't just make vague complaints about government waste. Define what is wasted and decide what to do about it. Put together a plan and like any plan, understand that the plan may have to change as time goes on and you collect more information.

I am not necessarily against this. I just want to know what the plan is. What can we get rid of. What procedures can be simplified. It's a big job and we should be doing it constantly.

If you just want to complain. Well yeah. Everybody complains.

In reply to pheller :

Points for getting us back on track, but you realize this is Detroit, right? Using Detroit as an example for tax policy would be like making zombie apocalypse surviveability the #1 criteria for choosing a new car. They want people with land without structures to pay the taxes for other people's structures? Sounds fair. Can I split my property tax with those in my town who don't own property? That would incentivize those tax dodgers to do their part and buy some property. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

The trouble is, that some of the world gets to live in that fantasy world  right now! We are simply looking around the world and seeing which countries  have it better than America.  Then we examine why and see if America  could  implement  that.   
 We are tired of being 20th or lower in national metrics.  Yes America does done things better than the rest of the world.  But not everything!!  

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to pheller :

Points for getting us back on track, but you realize this is Detroit, right? Using Detroit as an example for tax policy would be like making zombie apocalypse surviveability the #1 criteria for choosing a new car. They want people with land without structures to pay the taxes for other people's structures? Sounds fair. Can I split my property tax with those in my town who don't own property? That would incentivize those tax dodgers to do their part and buy some property. 

Nobody is getting away with NO taxes. They are just shifting the tax millage rates. Why should the nice house I've put my personal labor into be taxed higher than my neighbor who has a junky house? What incentive is there for me to keep my house up if I'm punished for it's increase in value? No, we should tax the land irrespective of the personal property value on it.

Singapore does it.

Australia does it. 

Denmark, Lithuania, Estonia, Russian, Taiwan, and Pittsburgh PA do it.

It's not new. It's not all that radical.

Most taxes distort economic decisions and discourage beneficial economic activity.[14] For example, property taxes discourage construction, maintenance, and repair because taxes increase with improvements. LVT is not based on how land is used. Because the supply of land is essentially fixed, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on landlord expenses. Thus landlords cannot pass LVT to tenants, who would move or rent smaller spaces before absorbing increased rent.[15]

The land's occupants benefit from improvements surrounding a site. Such improvements shift tenants' demand curve to the right (they will pay more). Landlords benefit from price competition among tenants; the only direct effect of LVT in this case is to reduce the amount of social benefit that is privately captured as land price by titleholders.

LVT is said to be justified for economic reasons because it does not deter production, distort markets, or otherwise create deadweight loss. Land value tax can even have negative deadweight loss (social benefits), particularly when land use improves.[16] Nobel Prize-winner William Vickrey believed that

"removing almost all business taxes, including property taxes on improvements, excepting only taxes reflecting the marginal social cost of public services rendered to specific activities, and replacing them with taxes on site values, would substantially improve the economic efficiency of the jurisdiction."[17]

LVT's efficiency has been observed in practice.[18] Fred Foldvary stated that LVT discourages speculative land holding because the tax reflects changes in land value (up and down), encouraging landowners to develop or sell vacant/underused plots in high demand. Foldvary claimed that LVT increases investment in dilapidated inner city areas because improvements don't cause tax increases. This in turn reduces the incentive to build on remote sites and so reduces urban sprawl.[19] For example, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's LVT has operated since 1975. This policy was credited by mayor Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant downtown structures from around 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500.[20]

LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]"

In reply to pheller :

In fact, it sounds like classic Georgism.