site taxes and SocSec cap

james withrow withrow21 at webtv.net
Sun Aug 23 13:24:49 PDT 1998


Paula: "the replacement of the property tax with one on the site value of land." What is that?

Max: "It's a tax on the assessed value of the land, ignoring whatever is on the land. If the tax does not fall on improvements to the land, such as structures, there is more incentive to improve vacant land and make housing cheaper, it is hoped. The tax would be progressive, by and large, since land ownership is concentrated among those with relatively more wealth, and there is no way to escape the tax by moving, since the land is immobile."

This 'site tax' got some press recently in PA and I have a couple reservations about it, although the idea has a lot going for it. It would be especially taxing on owners of vacant or decaying lots in high traffic areas. And even someone as reactionary as I am has never been able to figure out a rationale for the public good of real estate speculators, who allow their buildings to deteriorate.

My first question is, assuming that the revenue from the property tax stream has to stay at least as large, won't this tend to shift taxes from owners of large buildings to home-owners? And secondly, one of the great things about this city is its historic buildings. How would you factor in that some buildings cannot be replaced by law for reasons of historic preservation? Owners of those properties would not have the right to build in an economically efficient manner, yet their land might be worth a great deal.

On the social security cap question, I have to agree with the posters who decried the silence of the left on this issue. My maxim for political and negotiating effectiveness is to start with a proposal that is A) the most extreme that you agree with and would want to have happen and B) won't embarrass you in the future.

I don't think most working people realize there is a cap on social security and if they did realize, they'd be pissed about it. Make the Republicans tell us why there should be any cap at all. Put them on the defensive. If they say there's a problem with Social Security's revenue stream, make them explain why the cap isn't the fairest first fix. I bet if we did that, the Republicans would decide there isn't any problem after all. And if there's no problem, why not cut other working people's taxes by making the tax at least flat?

James in Philly



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list