← Back to context

Comment by danny_codes

2 days ago

> In almost all cities land has run out, so the only way to actually increase supply is to increase density. That means fewer single-family-homes, and more townhomes, multi-family, condos, and apartments.

Existing property owners can only afford to hold this opinion because land rents are insufficiently taxed. Through some sort of monumental stupidity we decided to tax labor instead of land. In this sense the SFH, “Americans like suburbia” problem is just a function of poor tax strategy. If homeowners were faced with the economic reality of their choices then markets would fix land use by themselves.

> we decided to tax labor instead of land

I live in Wyoming. We don't tax labor. Just extraction, consumption (sales), some investments and property. Our property is still expensive.

> If homeowners were faced with the economic reality of their choices then markets would fix land use by themselves

The problem begins and ends with supply restrictions.

  • More than 70% of the US population lives in a state with state income tax. So I think it's fair to say that "we" tax labor, in general, even if it's not universal.

    And regardless, "we" also means the US federal government here, and everyone in the US is subject to US income tax, regardless of which state you live in.

    • > it's fair to say that "we" tax labor, in general, even if it's not universal

      The point is we have a natural difference-in-differences layout, and it doesn’t sustain the hypothesis that taxing labor is the problem (for this effect).