5 ms·

They have that problem, but there are frequently programs or legislation designed to reduce that burden. Eg, >10% of Americans are (theoretically) covered by Pr

They have that problem, but there are frequently programs or legislation designed to reduce that burden. Eg, >10% of Americans are (theoretically) covered by Prop 13. Other municipalities may have laws on the books limiting property tax increases to a certain percent per year. Many other places offer property tax relief programs for people with low income, or the disabled, or the elderly, or generally by increasing exemptions. As I understand it though, you wouldn't want these programs with a LVT system, because they would just distort the market in a similar manner that it is now? Yes, because of the property appreciation, Terry can say that on paper, he is rich-ish, but a weird kind of rich where he has nothing but a house in a nice neighborhood, and otherwise has very little money. How does he pay off the taxes with the equity of his home? A HELOC could work, but he already can't afford the increased taxes with his income alone, so a HELOC would just delay the inevitable and based on his income he probably wouldn't qualify for one. Or he could do a reverse mortgage, be able to pay the taxes, but put himself at a major risk of losing his home entirely if he lives long enough. Also, reverse mortgages are only available to people over 62.

ok_dad 3y ago
The only cases I see LVT being seriously considered is alongside further tax and welfare reform, so that regular people have their burden decreased by the increased taxes from those cases where land is not being used efficiently today. So you’d have a basic income, public health insurance, zoning reform, and laws protecting private residential uses of land. You can’t just fix one issue alone here, it comes with a host of economic and financial reforms. Also, it does have possible downsides compared to today, like your single family home might not be there in a hundred or fifty years when the area needs more density. That’s okay to me, I think humans need to understand land use changes over time and you’re not always going to have a big family home last hundred of years under more reasonable land use laws.

ok_dad 3y ago

The only cases I see LVT being seriously considered is alongside further tax and welfare reform, so that regular people have their burden decreased by the increased taxes from those cases where land is not being used efficiently today. So you’d have a basic income, public health insurance, zoning reform, and laws protecting private residential uses of land. You can’t just fix one issue alone here, it comes with a host of economic and financial reforms. Also, it does have possible downsides compared to today, like your single family home might not be there in a hundred or fifty years when the area needs more density. That’s okay to me, I think humans need to understand land use changes over time and you’re not always going to have a big family home last hundred of years under more reasonable land use laws.