4 ms·

Doesn't work that way. A subway gets built near your property. The benefit of greater access accrues to you more than it does someone 10km away. So your LVT has

Doesn't work that way. A subway gets built near your property. The benefit of greater access accrues to you more than it does someone 10km away. So your LVT has to go up. Now you can't afford the taxes, and you're forced to sell and move to somewhere with lower LVT. It's bought by someone who will put it to better use. Maybe an apartment block instead of your single family home. Over time, every piece of land is put to its most productive use. But before it gets there, there will be some pain for the individuals who choose (or are forced) to move because they can't afford to the improvements made to the infrastructure in their locality.

xboxnolifes 4y ago
> Now you can't afford the taxes, and you're forced to sell and move to somewhere with lower LVT. It's bought by someone who will put it to better use. Maybe an apartment block instead of your single family home. > Over time, every piece of land is put to its most productive use. But before it gets there, there will be some pain for the individuals who choose (or are forced) to move because they can't afford to the improvements made to the infrastructure in their locality. Which is why I think it makes sense that the LVT shouldn't be re-evaluated on a rolling basis. It would only be re-evaluated (or at least put into effect) when it changes owners (sale, gift, inheritance, etc). Otherwise you get bad incentives for people to vote against improvements that price them out of living where they currently are. Corporate land ownership would likely need different rules, as the owner could theoretically be the same forever. Over time, land is still put to it's most productive use, there is just a delay introduced that considers the human condition.
- TimPC 4y ago
  This is basically Prop 13 in California which the world outside of California conclusively thinks is stupid. It’s incredibly unfair to give people massive tax breaks for buying a long time ago. The alleged benefits don’t reflect the immense cost. In this case you’re trying to replace the majority of all taxation with a value that doesn’t change with time. People get massive economic incentives to never move. People get massive economic incentives to resist change. I’d rather deal with a range of options from people selling and moving to introducing liens upon the property due at sale than have to deal with the mess that is 50 year stale land values and the associated negligible taxes that result.
- markdown 4y ago
  Nah, that won't work. Needs to be re-evaluated every 5 years at least.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

> Now you can't afford the taxes, and you're forced to sell and move to somewhere with lower LVT. It's bought by someone who will put it to better use. Maybe an apartment block instead of your single family home. > Over time, every piece of land is put to its most productive use. But before it gets there, there will be some pain for the individuals who choose (or are forced) to move because they can't afford to the improvements made to the infrastructure in their locality. Which is why I think it makes sense that the LVT shouldn't be re-evaluated on a rolling basis. It would only be re-evaluated (or at least put into effect) when it changes owners (sale, gift, inheritance, etc). Otherwise you get bad incentives for people to vote against improvements that price them out of living where they currently are. Corporate land ownership would likely need different rules, as the owner could theoretically be the same forever. Over time, land is still put to it's most productive use, there is just a delay introduced that considers the human condition.

TimPC 4y ago
This is basically Prop 13 in California which the world outside of California conclusively thinks is stupid. It’s incredibly unfair to give people massive tax breaks for buying a long time ago. The alleged benefits don’t reflect the immense cost. In this case you’re trying to replace the majority of all taxation with a value that doesn’t change with time. People get massive economic incentives to never move. People get massive economic incentives to resist change. I’d rather deal with a range of options from people selling and moving to introducing liens upon the property due at sale than have to deal with the mess that is 50 year stale land values and the associated negligible taxes that result.
markdown 4y ago
Nah, that won't work. Needs to be re-evaluated every 5 years at least.