[iugtmkbdfil834]

Huh? Last time I checked, municipalities big and small fight for every bit of investments they can get and they typically get it by offering a swath of incentives at the cost of the actual taxpayer. That high value land ends up being tax free for the actually wealthy while a schmuck like me get his bill increased and argues with otherwise well-meaning people that akshually high taxes are good for me.

[estearum]

What are you arguing here?

It seems like you're arguing that the people who own high value land should pay higher taxes than those who don't.

I agree!

[iugtmkbdfil834]

I think that what I am saying is that, in practice, the well-intended solutions like the one that was listed above are effectively nullified as they do not seem to anticipate real world human reactions. What ends up happening is that it is only a subset of the people, who own land that pay higher taxes. The solution is to remove any and all subsidies. Governments of all levels have not exactly proven to be a reliable steward over the past few centuries..

[estearum]

Well it's pretty easy to have a useless conversation if you're going to act as if the words your interlocutor are saying are "effectively nullified."

My solution does anticipate real-world human interactions: don't give rich landowners tax breaks. This is baked into the premise of having a high tax. A tax that is effectively not-high is by definition not a high tax, ergo is not the solution I am proposing. If I proposed a solution of "have a tax that is claimed to be high but actually is not," then your response would be valid. But my solution was: have a high land value tax.

Your solution is dismissible by your same logic. "While removing any and all subsidies is well-intended, in practice real-world human interactions dictate that will not occur."

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Sigh. No.

<< My solution does anticipate real-world human interactions: don't give rich landowners tax breaks. This is baked into the premise of having a high tax.

If it fails to address those now ( because those are already high ), what, exactly makes you think, it will work better if we increase those taxes? If anything, increasing those taxes will become an incentive to find ways to mitigate their impact..

The solution to remove those for everyone across the board, but we can't do that. We can't have an even playing field.

[estearum]

Land value taxes are not high. I think you are confused about the terms of the conversation.