[chongli]

The biggest losers of a LVT are SFH owners living in a humble old near worthless house on relatively valuable land.

No, because those folks can sell their property to a developer and earn a nice return while moving to a cheaper area.

[Tiktaalik]

The humble house owner can already do that now under the current property tax regime (where they would pay less than under a LVT regime). The only change here is that their taxes go up and they're thus "encouraged" to sell. Seems bad from their POV!

The LVT would zero the tax on improvements, and accordingly the tax on land would have to increase to compensate.

A mansion owner for example may have 40% of their bill be related to the expensive mansion building. Some regular humble house owner may only pay 5% of their tax based on the value of the house. So when the portion of the houses are eliminated and the land tax between them normalized, the mansion owner now pays less and the humble house owner pays more.

Listen I like a LVT I'm just pointing out that it's a big time giveaway for the very rich if it's implemented in a very basic way.

The net result is relatively poor homeowners are shoo'd out of their homes and forced to capitulate and move due to high taxes, while mansion owners get a tax cut.

If we want to bring in a LVT then we should also be bringing in some progressive property taxes on the wealthy.

[chongli]

I don't see a problem whatsoever with someone building a mansion out in the country to save money on taxes. LVT is not about that. It's about taxing the luxury condos downtown, and those definitely are more progressive than property taxes.