[scarmig]

I'm curious what mechanisms it proposes.

One of the funner ones I've heard of is that the owner and payer of the property tax performs the valuation of the land: it makes implementation pretty much free and uncontroversial! The only caveat is that whatever value the owner lists as the value is an amount they must accept for the land in a sale (plus some meaningful fee to drive off trolls).

So, sure, you can list the value of the land of your Pac Heights mansion as $1 and pay a commensurate tax on that. If you do, though, someone can purchase it for $1 and start charging you a hefty use fee.

[willcipriano]

I would not sell my home at the assessed value. As I would have to move my family, get a new mortgage, and change jobs and schools potentially. I live in a fairly expensive area and a home that meets my requirements (no hoa, not a townhouse) is hard to find. I may have to fork out twice as much to get something that meets those requirements. I don't see that as a great reason why I should pay taxes more than my neighbors.

[scarmig]

You're selling the land underneath your house, not your house. And you wouldn't have to move: you'd pay some use fee to the new owner (though there'd probably be some kind of option to revaluate after a bid to prevent a whole lot of churn).

[willcipriano]

My choice in buying the home was made for twofold reasons firstly to no longer be subject to the whims of a landlord, secondly to lock in my costs of housing against inflation. This would rob me of both those advantages. I don't see how you would get any homeowners to vote for a proposal like that.

[yellowapple]

> firstly to no longer be subject to the whims of a landlord

Unless you have an allodial title (hint: you almost certainly do not), you are always subject to the whims of at least one landlord, specifically the state.

[neilsense]

What a ridiculous response to a genuine concern.

[yellowapple]

Right, it's "ridiculous" to point out that the very premise of that "genuine" concern is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how land ownership works in pretty much every common law jurisdiction (the US included) because... reasons.

[chrismcb]

This sounds like an insane rich get richer scheme. I can either set a high value on my land and pay to much in taxes, or pretty much guarantee that someone would by my land. Why wouldn't they? They can buy the land, immediately place a higher value (they make the money on the resale) then charge a user few to cover the tax plus their income. As a current homeowner about the only thing I can do is place a high value on the land myself. Enough that is someone buys it out makes it easier for me to move. But then I'm paying higher taxes. Of course I have the problem with the new house. Essentially this removes land ownership from the average person. Some might say that isn't a bad thing, but it is when only the rich can afford land.

[paul_f]

This is a land value tax, not a tax on the improvements. If you have a lot worth $50,000 and a house worth $250,000, and place a value of $50,000 on it for tax purposes, do you propose people can buy your house for $50,000?

[scarmig]

No, they buy the land underneath your house for $50,000. They can then charge you a use fee for the land. If you don't want to be charged a use fee, you publish a higher price for your land.

[CincinnatiMan]

How does the use fee get set? I think you're simplifying things too much. Creating a land market where people can be forced to sell their land that they don't want to sell doesn't seem like it'd work.

[paul_f]

I can't see any downside to that :-) This "solution" kinda proves the core idea is unworkable

[SCLeo]

I am probably missing something, but why can't they buy the land and charge you $1,000,000,000,000,000 an hour for the use, so you have to leave the house?