3 ms·

This is true, but without a sufficiently high floor for a LVT it's meaningless as property tax already covers things. Also, I would imagine a LVT to be decided

by tabeth 9y ago

This is true, but without a sufficiently high floor for a LVT it's meaningless as property tax already covers things. Also, I would imagine a LVT to be decided by the state and not the city or town. If that's the case you wouldn't expect drastically different LVTs for a given region. Regardless, you need not a small undeveloped city, just take an abandoned part of any city. The same thing applies.

klipt 9y ago
> If that's the case you wouldn't expect drastically different LVTs for a given region. The LVT may be the same percentage statewide, but the absolute amount of tax depends on the value of the land which is drastically different across regions. Cf downtown San Francisco vs farmland in the central valley. > just take an abandoned part of any city If it's abandoned (bad crime, fewer services etc) the land will be worth less than elsewhere in the city.
- tabeth 9y ago
  If it's that arbitrary then I see no difference between this and the existing property tax. Why even implement it? Property tax already takes into account both the improvements and the land. Property tax is also different depending on region. The main purpose of LVT, I thought, was simply to abandon property tax and tax solely on the land, which would be assed on a square feet basis, with little consideration to the area. What you're already exists with property tax (albeit California AFAIK implemented something where your property isn't reassesed).
  - klipt 9y ago
    > If it's that arbitrary It's arbitrary that land in a desert is worth less than land in a major city? > I see no difference between this and the existing property tax Property tax: your parking lot in the middle of downtown San Francisco isn't worth much so we won't tax it much. LVT: You could build a condo building on that parking lot, so we will tax you the same amount for the land as if you had. LVT creates strong incentives to build useful things on the land.
    - tabeth 9y ago
      Again, property tax is implemented by the assessment. Your example is a failure in assessing. It has nothing to do with LVT. Also, your desert example doesn't make sense. If the land is usable it will be taxed. If it is not usable it wouldn't be taxed heavily under the current scheme, nor would it be with LVT. I think you're underestimating how much people are already taxed for their property.

by tabeth 9y ago

klipt 9y ago

> If that's the case you wouldn't expect drastically different LVTs for a given region. The LVT may be the same percentage statewide, but the absolute amount of tax depends on the value of the land which is drastically different across regions. Cf downtown San Francisco vs farmland in the central valley. > just take an abandoned part of any city If it's abandoned (bad crime, fewer services etc) the land will be worth less than elsewhere in the city.

tabeth 9y ago
If it's that arbitrary then I see no difference between this and the existing property tax. Why even implement it? Property tax already takes into account both the improvements and the land. Property tax is also different depending on region. The main purpose of LVT, I thought, was simply to abandon property tax and tax solely on the land, which would be assed on a square feet basis, with little consideration to the area. What you're already exists with property tax (albeit California AFAIK implemented something where your property isn't reassesed).
- klipt 9y ago
  > If it's that arbitrary It's arbitrary that land in a desert is worth less than land in a major city? > I see no difference between this and the existing property tax Property tax: your parking lot in the middle of downtown San Francisco isn't worth much so we won't tax it much. LVT: You could build a condo building on that parking lot, so we will tax you the same amount for the land as if you had. LVT creates strong incentives to build useful things on the land.
  - tabeth 9y ago
    Again, property tax is implemented by the assessment. Your example is a failure in assessing. It has nothing to do with LVT. Also, your desert example doesn't make sense. If the land is usable it will be taxed. If it is not usable it wouldn't be taxed heavily under the current scheme, nor would it be with LVT. I think you're underestimating how much people are already taxed for their property.