That’s an interesting idea… increase the tax on the value of the land itself and decrease the tax on assets ON the land.
Theory being people don’t want to put a multi-story building on their land because now they have to pay property taxes on a (potentially) multi-million dollar structure.
Similarly people don’t want to improve their property because of potential tax implications.
It SEEMS like a good idea, but I think the problem with it is tax burden is likely not the only reason for a lack of development.
So if they reduce the taxes and development STILL doesn’t come?
They’re not reducing taxes, they’re adjusting how much of the tax is applied to a given property. So if 97% gets a tax reduction, the other 3% are making up the difference, resulting in the same net tax receipts.
So if development still doesn’t come, nothing changes. At least that’s my read of the situation.
That’s an interesting idea… increase the tax on the value of the land itself and decrease the tax on assets ON the land.
Theory being people don’t want to put a multi-story building on their land because now they have to pay property taxes on a (potentially) multi-million dollar structure.
Similarly people don’t want to improve their property because of potential tax implications.
It SEEMS like a good idea, but I think the problem with it is tax burden is likely not the only reason for a lack of development.
So if they reduce the taxes and development STILL doesn’t come?
They’re not reducing taxes, they’re adjusting how much of the tax is applied to a given property. So if 97% gets a tax reduction, the other 3% are making up the difference, resulting in the same net tax receipts.
So if development still doesn’t come, nothing changes. At least that’s my read of the situation.