Re: New Orleans and LVT

>> On the contrary, far more would get done. If we did not tax the value
>> of structures, but only the land beneath them, there would be a
>> tremendous incentive to build.


>The landowners would not come up with $200B or whatever. They could not
>recover their money.

Then the land should go to someone who can use it more productively.


>> The developer willing to pay the highest tax would get the land.


>So you would have an auction for each piece of property independt of what was
>their now or who owned it.?

Unless the current owner is willing to ante up the tax.

>> So? If the federal government is going to shell out the reconstruction
>> funding, they can mandate tax changes at the state and local levels as
>> well.


>It is not tax changes you are proposing strickly, it is the source of
>funding.

Right. Changing the source of funding by changing the tax system.

>You are taking away the share the burden concept of the way the Federal govt.
>works - e.g. through the army corps. of engineers and transferring it to
>locals.

No, I am proposing to move the system towards "beneficiary pays", which
happens to be the fairest approach.

>So the cost burden to the locals would be much greater than it would
>have been and in fact much greater than it would be under today's rules where
>feds pay for interstates etc.

Why should New Jersey taxpayer dollars go to New Orleans landowners?

>It would be much cheaper just to go elsewhere.

If that's the case, then so be it.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast