|
|
|
|
|
by BirdieNZ
1887 days ago
|
|
Let's say you have a current property worth $1,000,000. 75% of the value is unimproved land, 25% is the capital improvements (house etc.) It's being rented out at $40,000 a year ($3,333 a month). 75% of the rent is economic rent of the unimproved value of the land, 25% is for the house. So a 1% land value tax would be $10,000 a year. A 3% LVT would eat up the entirety of the economic rent. However, the yield on that property would go down from 4% per annum to 1% per annum, so the value of the land would drop. Any politically realistic implementation would involve progressively increasing the LVT and reducing other taxes over time, so the first year might be 1% LVT, but eventually the price of the property would drop such that a 100% LVT wouldn't be unreasonable (although an 85% LVT or thereabouts is often thought to work better). |
|