| I disagree with the rebuttals, but along a different line of reasoning: 1) The article repeatedly leans on the concept that the municipal tax itself is insignificant and unimportant, that it's ability to grow or shrink is bounded, and that implementing an LVT will raise taxes overall. An LVT is supposed to supplant other forms of tax - you aren't supposed to be paying income tax, school tax, etc. in addition to it. The increased property tax should be a wash at the individual level unless you're making poor use of land. His own priors indicate that municipal taxation is not LVT-like, but he claims that it is. 2) He claims that the rich won't care about the tax increase (so why not increase revenue there?) but that seniors that are land-rich but wealth poor will get liquidated. He doesn't bother to think about what this means - land values decrease as non-productive land is returned to the market. He claims renters will get squeezed stating that there's only housing supply where there are profits. Sure, but how would it look? Would we be out popping medium size detached dwellings in suburbs that create net-negative income for cities in the long term (but are profitable for developers and speculators), or would it favour densification in areas already served by infrastructure? No argument is provided. Basically the key point made that is decently supported is "there will be pain during a transition between the two systems", but I don't think anyone believes otherwise. |