4 ms·

That's the whole point. If you want to sit on an acre of land in a dense area, you should be taxed at the highest and best value of that land. You make a valid

That's the whole point. If you want to sit on an acre of land in a dense area, you should be taxed at the highest and best value of that land. You make a valid point about services that can be measured, but the point of a Georgist land value tax is that land is the thing that is least distortionary to tax. I'm not fully bought in and think a transition would be very difficult, but this is one of the reasons I don't like California's Prop 13 (even if I think all the proposed reforms would leave us in a worse state).

mmglr 6y ago
> If you want to sit on an acre of land in a dense area, you should be taxed at the highest and best value of that land. Isn't that what property tax already codifies? Also aren't market forces already essentially doing this? If I sit on an acre of land in a dense area I will have developers knocking at my door and everyone has a price.
- notahacker 6y ago
  This is true (though since land is a finite resource, market forces can also encourage landowners not to sell the land to someone wanting to put it to efficient use now if the shortage of suitable development land in the area is likely to grow worse) The theory behind LVT is that the increase in a land's value from it becoming the centre of a bustling city should accrue to funds the government spends on the city's population (which helps make land more valuable) and not the person that's sitting on the land