5 ms·

Isn't that exactly what property taxes currently are?

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• leetcrew 7y ago
  no? if you renovate your house in a way that increases the value of the structure, you will pay more tax. under LVT, you only pay more tax when the land itself increases in value. that's how the tax gets its name.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • war1025 7y ago
    My property taxes are a combination of both land value and dwelling value. So property tax is a superset of land value tax (at least here in Iowa). My understanding is that this is all screwed up in California because there are restrictions on how much your taxes can go up each year. So it's not an issue of needing an additional tax, it's just a matter of needing to un-break California's property tax system.
    • leetcrew 7y ago
      I personally don't know enough econ to know whether LVT is actually a good idea, but intuitively it makes sense to me. the basic objection to property tax as it currently exists is that it penalizes you for improving your property. at the margin, this creates a perverse incentive to let housing stock degrade or even leave whole lots unused. in general LVT advocates want it to replace traditional property taxes, no be added alongside them. the claim is that, for a target tax revenue, LVT can raise the funds much more efficiently. as for California, the problem with their tax system is outside the scope of LVT vs traditional property tax. they have land with massive valuations but get relatively little revenue out of it due to extremely low grandfathered rates.