[chii]

> A busy major international port would need to be taxed very differently than a sparsely attended beach just a mile away. This seems very difficult to get right.

you could imagine that the taxation is tied to the value of the land, which can be calculated as the rent income, minus the value of improvements upon the land (such as any buildings, which can be estimated by the cost of construction and maintenance over the useful life time, which is already a figure that is needed for depreciation purposes).

This is the reason why LVT cannot be passed onto the renter, because if you increase the rent, you would pay more taxes as the value of the land must have increased if the renter accepts this higher rent without any changes to the building.

[inter_netuser]

valuations are always subjective. you pretend it's like some sort of precise science, but it is not, never was, and never will be. ffs, the example is a major international port, not a cookie-cutter shoebox-sized condo.

The very first thing that will happen upon implementation of LVT is simple "rebranding" of "renting" into "mortgages".

What tax do you charge then? some LLC "owns" the port. some bank provides it a "mortgage".

What's the tax due on such mortgaged property? Previous rent? What if such rent was never charged and it was mortgaged from day zero? What then? What if there is no comparable entity to compare to? Just some half-ass guess?

What's the LVT tax on the Suez Canal? Panama Canal?

It's FAR from trivial.

[ajb]

The Romans had a solution to this. You self declare a value, the government gets a right to purchase your property at that value, which they exercise if they think you declared too low. Otherwise you are taxed.

Not everyone will likes that idea, but it shows that a non subjective solution exists, it and where there is one, there may be more.