Yeah it would be cool if residents of an area could simply come together and make their own decisions about what could raise the value of the entire region without being punished by an increase LVT to a government who did not think to do these things. But I think that process of coming together to do things is what a local government is supposed to be.
I dunno. I’m starting to think that the very american assumption that public and private are supposed to be separate worlds that don’t influence each other is actually disgustingly wrong. All goods have both public and private components. So maybe the land taxes of any new installation should factor both of these things. When you benefit from the surroundings, you should pay, when you contribute, you should be paid back. Maybe LVT should be further generalized: The labors that we know you are quietly benefiting from, you must pay towards them.
(Imagine a ministry of aesthetics who pay a basic sum to beautiful buildings, who don’t strictly block the creation of ugly buildings but do impose an ongoing cost. Imagine those incentives applied consistently over an entire city for decades.)
Very wrong assumption indeed, but not (no longer? or never?) typically American by any means. Also maybe it is a necessary wrong assumption? How do you merge public and private without rendering either word meaningless, in practice?
You make it a continuum. The degree to which a project is an excludable good, or to which its importance is only legible to its customers, is its privateness.
Yeah it would be cool if residents of an area could simply come together and make their own decisions about what could raise the value of the entire region without being punished by an increase LVT to a government who did not think to do these things. But I think that process of coming together to do things is what a local government is supposed to be.
I dunno. I’m starting to think that the very american assumption that public and private are supposed to be separate worlds that don’t influence each other is actually disgustingly wrong.
All goods have both public and private components. So maybe the land taxes of any new installation should factor both of these things. When you benefit from the surroundings, you should pay, when you contribute, you should be paid back. Maybe LVT should be further generalized: The labors that we know you are quietly benefiting from, you must pay towards them.
(Imagine a ministry of aesthetics who pay a basic sum to beautiful buildings, who don’t strictly block the creation of ugly buildings but do impose an ongoing cost. Imagine those incentives applied consistently over an entire city for decades.)
Very wrong assumption indeed, but not (no longer? or never?) typically American by any means. Also maybe it is a necessary wrong assumption? How do you merge public and private without rendering either word meaningless, in practice?
You make it a continuum. The degree to which a project is an excludable good, or to which its importance is only legible to its customers, is its privateness.