3 ms·

Absolutely! The biggest advantage for most, particularly readers of HN, is described in part II (http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenants h

Absolutely! The biggest advantage for most, particularly readers of HN, is described in part II (http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenants http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenant...): "...landlords cannot pass Land Value Tax (LVT) on to their tenants..." Renting an apartment in SF would therefore both be cheap, because the LVT encourages high-density, and tax-advantaged, especially if the LVT is (as it is supposed to be) the only tax. The bottom line is that this idea has literally no downside.

TimPC 4y ago
Renting the apartment in SF will not be cheap because the land has extremely high value. It's just the government will capture the high value of that land instead of landlords and that high value land capture will be used to remove other taxes like income tax and property tax. Land prices in SF would fall slightly as the LVT removes most speculation. So likely rents go from $6000/month to something like $5400/month. But the government might capture $4500 of that to reduce other taxes. If we still had 1870's small government the idea would be to put most of the LVT into a Citizen's Dividend which functions like a UBI and helps people pay for their cost of living (including some of the land taxes).
colinmhayes 4y ago
Rental prices would not change, it's just that more of the money would go to government instead of the landlord, especially for low density housing.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  They probably would decrease somewhat, because there's no longer an incentive for landowners to prevent people from building housing to keep the supply low.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    This is something I’ve been wondering about with LVT. Wouldn’t they still have an incentive to stop people from building more dense housing near them? Even more of an incentive than now, in fact? Because the more people that can live and work in the immediate area near them, the more valuable the land is, and the more they’ll pay in tax.
    - invalidOrTaken 4y ago
      As the land becomes more valuable, it becomes more valuable to them---better access to services, etc. If it becomes more valuable, but in such a way that they can't leverage it, they can sell it.

TimPC 4y ago

Renting the apartment in SF will not be cheap because the land has extremely high value. It's just the government will capture the high value of that land instead of landlords and that high value land capture will be used to remove other taxes like income tax and property tax. Land prices in SF would fall slightly as the LVT removes most speculation. So likely rents go from $6000/month to something like $5400/month. But the government might capture $4500 of that to reduce other taxes. If we still had 1870's small government the idea would be to put most of the LVT into a Citizen's Dividend which functions like a UBI and helps people pay for their cost of living (including some of the land taxes).

colinmhayes 4y ago

Rental prices would not change, it's just that more of the money would go to government instead of the landlord, especially for low density housing.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
They probably would decrease somewhat, because there's no longer an incentive for landowners to prevent people from building housing to keep the supply low.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  This is something I’ve been wondering about with LVT. Wouldn’t they still have an incentive to stop people from building more dense housing near them? Even more of an incentive than now, in fact? Because the more people that can live and work in the immediate area near them, the more valuable the land is, and the more they’ll pay in tax.
  - invalidOrTaken 4y ago
    As the land becomes more valuable, it becomes more valuable to them---better access to services, etc. If it becomes more valuable, but in such a way that they can't leverage it, they can sell it.