On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:24:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   > Landowners just pass on property taxes to their tenants anyway, so there   
   > is no reason for them to prefer any other form of tax--unless they have   
   > no tenants, i.e. they're speculators.   
      
   That assumes the tenants can afford to pay increased rent to pay the taxes.    
   If not, the landowner is screwed.  Such is often the situation in older   
   cities, where the demand for taxes is high to pay for more social services,   
   yet the population has less    
   money.  It often ends up in abandoned property.   
      
   Often times a city council will pass such high taxes knowing the landlords   
   can't do anything about it in the short run (and politicians only care about   
   the short-run).   
      
   Indeed, one key issue this land-use discussion has ignored is that real estate   
   is not a liquid asset.  A town can raise taxes overnight, but it will take a   
   property owner much time to adjust--be it do something different with the   
   land, e.g. build    
   something or sell it off.  Further, maximizing land use profit is limited by   
   zoning, laws, historical designation, etc.  Laws are passed regulating land   
   use for quality of life reasons.   
      
   Also, the concept advanced that land is taxed based on various services given   
   to it is b/s.  Government needs taxes, and taxes everything--land, income,   
   commerce--to the extent it can get away with it.  In many areas, official land   
   "valuation" is utter b/   
   s.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)