| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (385)
Somebody sent me an email headed “LVT and Class Warfare” with the following nugget:
And here's a question worth asking, what if a low income neighbourhood gets together as a community and works with the police to cut down crime in their area? If land taxes then go up and a bunch of rich toffs move in, then the very community that worked hard to improve their neighbourhood could be forced to move on.
I'm inclined to agree with your economic arguments that LVT would increase overall productivity as well as improve the housing stock but you can't ignore the fact that a careless LVT zoning policy would exacerbate income band apartheid.
I've heard this one before, it is of course completely bunkum.
It is impossible for a very small, identifiable group of people to permanently reduce crime in their neighbourhood and thereby push up land values.
I suppose it is theoretically possible that everybody in “the local community” could agree not to commit crimes in the area and to carry out Neighbourhood Watch patrols, report law-breaking family members to the police etc. But I've never heard of it happening, and apart from that, it only takes a few criminal households out of thousands to turn a low crime area into a high crime one. What if they don't sign up?
Further, in the absence of LVT, let us assume that one person from this neighbourhood decides to sell up for a higher price and move away…
Firstly, he sells it to a wealthier person. Secondly, what is that wealthier person paying for? He is certainly not paying for the efforts of the person who has moved away who is no longer contributing. Thirdly, if the new resident wants to keep crime down, he has to put in the hours and abide by the rules himself, so basically what he is paying for is partly his own efforts.
Source: http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2016/02/killer-arguments-against-lvt-not-385.html
