3 ms·
> Worse, if you build an improvement which makes the location more valuable (for example, a tech company building their headquarters and creating demand for nea
by markdown 5y ago
> Worse, if you build an improvement which makes the location more valuable (for example, a tech company building their headquarters and creating demand for nearby residential space) then you pay LVT on the value you created.
How is that worse when that's how you are currently taxed? The more value you create, the more money you make, the wealthier you are, the more you get taxed. Except if you're currently a billionaire tax dodger, you can't dodge any more.
- nybble41 5y ago> How is that worse when that's how you are currently taxed? It's worse from the point of view of the LVT proponents' argument that the tax is based on the "intrinsic value" of the land and not improvements contributed by the property owner. You're correct that it's not that different from an income tax, but LVT is supposed to be more "fair" than an income tax specifically because it taxes "unearned" natural resources and not the owner's contributions. An income tax, of course, is designed to be exactly the opposite: a tax on earnings from economic activity. This is not to say that an income tax is objectively better than LVT, just that LVT and property tax have more in common than some prefer to admit, mostly because the practical/legal definition of "improvement" (i.e. buildings and other physical changes to the property) does not encompass all economic value created by the owner.