4 ms·
It's a bit hand-wavey logic in the OP. He's saying the cost of a home should be affordable, therefore any intrinsic value of the land (versus the cost of buildi
by WhompingWindows 5y ago
It's a bit hand-wavey logic in the OP. He's saying the cost of a home should be affordable, therefore any intrinsic value of the land (versus the cost of building the structure) should be taxed very heavily, such that 100% of the value of housing spending goes into the structure and not the land. Land is merely a vehicle to produce tax revenue, if anyone has extra land, they must pay for the privilege.
This would be disastrous for our house, we have a large wooded plot, it would presumably be heavily taxed beyond our means to pay.
- zozbot234 5y ago> This would be disastrous for our house, we have a large wooded plot, it would presumably be heavily taxed beyond our means to pay. A house with a "large wooded plot" is likely in a rural fringe area where pure land values are extremely low. LVT will mostly be borne by highly-productive urban centers that can easily afford it.