3 ms·

Not really, landlord will pass costs through to renter. So the Land Value Tax isn't really paid the the land owner but by the tenant of the land, through the la

by edoceo 7y ago

Not really, landlord will pass costs through to renter. So the Land Value Tax isn't really paid the the land owner but by the tenant of the land, through the land owner, to the Gov. And the Gov sees the rich land owner as the source, not the renter. And it makes the land-owmer seem like their taxes are high - when the burden is not theirs

danaris 7y ago
> Not really, landlord will pass costs through to renter. This argument, followed to its logical conclusion, would tell us to abandon all taxes, all monetary penalties short of total seizure, and any form of finance-based incentive on companies and landlords. So, what would you propose instead? Edit: ....Also, this ignores the fact that not all land owned by the wealthy is being rented. Indeed, there are landlords that deliberately keep units empty, in part to reduce supply and keep the price of the units they rent higher. Taxing them even when they're inactive would prevent this kind of perverse incentive and help (at least in some small way) to alleviate the housing shortages in some areas.
- edoceo 7y ago
  Wealth tax is the alternative. It's a tax rich folk cannot pass-thru.
  - eitland 7y ago
    It is not like one tax type or another will prevent them from rising prices to lay their taxes if they are powerful enough.
chongli 7y ago
Land Value Tax is not the same thing as property tax. LVT is a tax on the unimproved value of the land. That means when the owner builds something on the land, it does not affect the tax. Instead, the tax increases when the value of the land increases due to external factors, such as a new light rail transit line is built. This means that a wealthy person owning an empty lot in an expensive part of the city pays just as much tax as the condominium owner next door. This encourages the empty lot owner to build and collect some rents in order to offset the tax. This ultimately increases the supply of real estate and puts downward pressure on rent.

by edoceo 7y ago

danaris 7y ago

> Not really, landlord will pass costs through to renter. This argument, followed to its logical conclusion, would tell us to abandon all taxes, all monetary penalties short of total seizure, and any form of finance-based incentive on companies and landlords. So, what would you propose instead? Edit: ....Also, this ignores the fact that not all land owned by the wealthy is being rented. Indeed, there are landlords that deliberately keep units empty, in part to reduce supply and keep the price of the units they rent higher. Taxing them even when they're inactive would prevent this kind of perverse incentive and help (at least in some small way) to alleviate the housing shortages in some areas.

edoceo 7y ago
Wealth tax is the alternative. It's a tax rich folk cannot pass-thru.
- eitland 7y ago
  It is not like one tax type or another will prevent them from rising prices to lay their taxes if they are powerful enough.

chongli 7y ago

Land Value Tax is not the same thing as property tax. LVT is a tax on the unimproved value of the land. That means when the owner builds something on the land, it does not affect the tax. Instead, the tax increases when the value of the land increases due to external factors, such as a new light rail transit line is built. This means that a wealthy person owning an empty lot in an expensive part of the city pays just as much tax as the condominium owner next door. This encourages the empty lot owner to build and collect some rents in order to offset the tax. This ultimately increases the supply of real estate and puts downward pressure on rent.