> Yeah, let’s kick old ladies out of their houses so we can get a piece.
If the problem is "kicking old ladies out", why not just allow seniors to defer their property tax, instead of what we have now, where even corporations pay the same fixed tax? Seems a little absurd to give the entire state a tax break for a problem that only effects 10% (at most).
The "old ladies" argument was just a cover for the real reason, and you've been duped.
> I’d like to see an example of increasing taxes on a good or service somehow making it cheaper.
It's fairly well known that a land value tax actually has negative deadweight loss, because it incentivizes more efficient land use. It definitely can't make housing more expensive, since the supply-demand curve remains the same (the supply of land is fixed).
Asking people to pay property tax doesn’t imply “kicking out old ladies” though. Many people who could afford the new property tax (and thus aren’t being kicked out) might choose to downsize anyway to save money.
If the problem is "kicking old ladies out", why not just allow seniors to defer their property tax, instead of what we have now, where even corporations pay the same fixed tax? Seems a little absurd to give the entire state a tax break for a problem that only effects 10% (at most).
The "old ladies" argument was just a cover for the real reason, and you've been duped.
> I’d like to see an example of increasing taxes on a good or service somehow making it cheaper.
It's fairly well known that a land value tax actually has negative deadweight loss, because it incentivizes more efficient land use. It definitely can't make housing more expensive, since the supply-demand curve remains the same (the supply of land is fixed).
Also: http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/property/affor...