3 ms·

Sure, but would that be the case either way? I am quite suspicious how it would work better than the property + undeveloped land tax. And I would say LVT would

by tekkk 6y ago

Sure, but would that be the case either way? I am quite suspicious how it would work better than the property + undeveloped land tax. And I would say LVT would disproportionally affect the poorer folk who live in the country side with a lot of land without anything to build on it. But I guess these points have already been discussed in this thread.

pydry 6y ago
Poorer folk in the countryside will be surrounded by land that is worth less and will be taxed less accordingly. Land value tax means a square meter in manhattan gets taxed the same as an acre in middle of nowhere wyoming. Rich folk hoarding higher value but physically smaller land/buildings in the city centres surrounded by amenities and transport infrastructure will be buried in taxes. Either they make that land work for its taxes or they yield it to somebody who will. It'll cause better development of land too since land speculation will be removed from the land development formula. Either you make buildings people like and want to rent and you make a profit or you don't. As a landlord you'll be both insulated from declines in an area's popularity and unable to profit from an area being suddenly fashionable.
- tekkk 6y ago
  Ok, I see. But still, this boosted urbanization doesn't seem that great for building diverse cities. Just making as tall and densely-packed buildings as possible. Yeah, ok if you build villas in the city center I can see it being useful but it seems very similar to the current taxation.
  - pydry 6y ago
    The difference is going to be less what gets built and who gets to profit. Instead of land speculators like Donald Trump making profits off the backs of our hard work the unearned land wealth will be distributed more evenly. In both scenarios few people will build villas in downtown Manhattan because it is too profitable to build skyscrapers instead. The difference is that with LVT building a villa will be a massive tax burden whereas under our current system there is no tax burden.

by tekkk 6y ago

pydry 6y ago

Poorer folk in the countryside will be surrounded by land that is worth less and will be taxed less accordingly. Land value tax means a square meter in manhattan gets taxed the same as an acre in middle of nowhere wyoming. Rich folk hoarding higher value but physically smaller land/buildings in the city centres surrounded by amenities and transport infrastructure will be buried in taxes. Either they make that land work for its taxes or they yield it to somebody who will. It'll cause better development of land too since land speculation will be removed from the land development formula. Either you make buildings people like and want to rent and you make a profit or you don't. As a landlord you'll be both insulated from declines in an area's popularity and unable to profit from an area being suddenly fashionable.

tekkk 6y ago
Ok, I see. But still, this boosted urbanization doesn't seem that great for building diverse cities. Just making as tall and densely-packed buildings as possible. Yeah, ok if you build villas in the city center I can see it being useful but it seems very similar to the current taxation.
- pydry 6y ago
  The difference is going to be less what gets built and who gets to profit. Instead of land speculators like Donald Trump making profits off the backs of our hard work the unearned land wealth will be distributed more evenly. In both scenarios few people will build villas in downtown Manhattan because it is too profitable to build skyscrapers instead. The difference is that with LVT building a villa will be a massive tax burden whereas under our current system there is no tax burden.