[pydry]

LVT turns an asset into a liability. The fact that they can afford it isn't the point. They won't want to afford it if it's a liability unless they live in it or can rent it out.

Meanwhile city coffers fill up with cash that can be used to build social housing.

The only downside to LVT on non primary residences is the epic political fight it would require against the super rich.

[skybrian]

How do you know they would pay more property tax than now? These skyscrapers are very tall and thin. They use very little land and the tax would be divided up among many floors.

If you wanted to design a building to pay as little land tax as possible, this is what it would look like.

[pydry]

They use a small amount of some of the most valuable land in the United States.

They also purchased "air rights" from neighboring buildings.

Their LVT bill (assuming air rights were also taken into account) would not be small.

It seems that people also don't actually like living in them. It's particularly noteworthy that they're speaking out about it because they're risking doing real damage to their investment by doing so. That's a sign that they really don't like it.

If it were built primarily as a place to live rather than as an investment I don't think it would look the same at all. There would be far greater emphasis on livability, less on views and probably a much lower height.

[skybrian]

Whatever the land value tax is, neighboring buildings will pay far more, because they use more land and there are fewer floors to spread the tax over.

A LVT increases the cost per square foot more for shorter buildings. A 10 story building pays about twice as much on a square foot basis as a 20 story building. The whole point is to encourage taller buildings.

(It’s not quite that simple since taller buildings probably have less usable square footage per floor, but that’s basically how it works.)