The distinction is land vs capital. Plenty of economists talk about the problem you mention.
w2qw
joined 2 years ago
Controlling the natural resources a country and leasing it out it private companies is pretty standard practice in most non corrupt countries. Norway probably differs in that they capture more of the economic rent in part due to a more efficient tax and a share of public ownership.
It's also pretty evident that we could not sustain the current population on preindustrial farming let alone hunter gathering.
More than 2 I think
It depends the infrastructure costs required for the new development is more than what they recover. If it's less and reducing them encourages more development then it gives them more revenue overall.
India is building a ton of solar as well.
Yeah you aren't wrong there. Figuring our a way to placated those groups is required to get it to be implemented.
Yeah nope. You have to understand the reason deductions exists for income tax is that they allow you to deduct your costs from the revenue you take in and are only paying tax on the profit.
Edit: I should add plenty of places that do have land taxes usually have a lot of exemptions like here, your primary residence is exempted as well as any land for primary production (land used for agriculture) but those exist for political reasons.
Not necessarily the first as long as it's done in land efficient way and the second if they are unwilling to move but otherwise yes.
There's nothing that differentiates "affordable" apartments those at that aren't except the amount that are available. Maybe you aren't a NIMBY but a lot do use similar arguments and then start on about heritage protection.
They probably only had margarine croissants left.