4 ms·

Improvements are not considered in a land value tax; it's kind of the point. Land is also more fungible and easier to model the value of than improvements. Why

• bpt3 1y ago
  > Improvements are not considered in a land value tax; it's kind of the point. The potential improvements to a parcel are a key factor in the land value, so they are relevant. > Land is also more fungible and easier to model the value of than improvements. Land is more fungible, but not easier to value IMO. Input costs for improvements are easily calculated, the value of being in a nice neighborhood, having good schools nearby, being close (or not) to public transit, etc. are much harder to calculate. > Why would you prefer an income tax -- by definition, taking earned income -- to a land value tax, which is constructed specifically to target unearned windfalls and the time value of access to public infrastructure and community benefits? Taxes need to be paid somehow, and I think having some diversity in revenue sources is a good strategy. Also, given how bad of a job governments do in assessing property under the current scheme (see the article here as an example), I don't think giving them more power to arbitrarily decide the "true" value of the property based on the fairly arbitrary metrics you described is a good idea. Lastly, one person's "unearned windfall" is another person's wise investment.