"New York City alone has more than 77,000 lots that are either vacant or have a building that is less than half the size of what zoning allows"
add to that that those lots/buildings may have already sold their "air rights" and thus aren't allowed to build more.
>Altus, which is a real-estate analytics and advisory firm, counted private lots larger than 3,000 square feet that are likely suitable for development.
no mentioning of air rights. That is how you distinguish real analytics from a propaganda job.
And even with totally vacant and still having their air rights lots, that 77000 would still be a pretty healthy rate of 7%.
>How about an 85% income tax? 80%? 75%? Where do you draw the line? The truth is, it's a matter of degree. Even a 10% tax disincentivizes work a little bit.
the lines are well known. Across the world taxes less than 20% are called "low", higher than 40% - "high". People understand that they need to pay their share to maintain commons.
>Even a 10% tax disincentivizes work a little bit.
I never heard/seen/read about such a phenomenon in real life. That seems like you're doing a pure theoretical stretch of the 90% model.
Not "vacant":
"New York City alone has more than 77,000 lots that are either vacant or have a building that is less than half the size of what zoning allows"
add to that that those lots/buildings may have already sold their "air rights" and thus aren't allowed to build more.
>Altus, which is a real-estate analytics and advisory firm, counted private lots larger than 3,000 square feet that are likely suitable for development.
no mentioning of air rights. That is how you distinguish real analytics from a propaganda job.
And even with totally vacant and still having their air rights lots, that 77000 would still be a pretty healthy rate of 7%.
>How about an 85% income tax? 80%? 75%? Where do you draw the line? The truth is, it's a matter of degree. Even a 10% tax disincentivizes work a little bit.
the lines are well known. Across the world taxes less than 20% are called "low", higher than 40% - "high". People understand that they need to pay their share to maintain commons.
>Even a 10% tax disincentivizes work a little bit.
I never heard/seen/read about such a phenomenon in real life. That seems like you're doing a pure theoretical stretch of the 90% model.