3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAgain, 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.