4 ms·
Sort of, but that would give you the "social value" of the land, which it only has because of its present use and its proximity to other land used for specific
by giaour 4y ago
Sort of, but that would give you the "social value" of the land, which it only has because of its present use and its proximity to other land used for specific purposes. E.g., the land under my house is worth $X because it's in a residential area in a major metropolitan area. If I were to build a dense mixed use complex on a large plot of land, I would probably increase the land value (since density would make it a desirable area).
Does LVT look at a piece of land's productive value instead (i.e., how much food you could grow on it or how many minerals you could mine out of it)?
- frosted-flakes 4y agoLVT is based on location, not farming potential.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- simonh 4y agoThe point of an LVT is to tax all those external factors that increase the value of the land, such as local amenities, zoning, etc. The idea is the only value added by owners of the property was the structure they built, that’s theirs, the rest of the value is in a sense un-earned. Much of it is due to government investment in infrastructure and facilities, for example. Taxing the social value is the intention.
- giaour 4y agoBut if a developer builds, say, an airport on some unattractive land outside of a city, they will create most of the value being taxed, right? The same is true to some extent for any structure.