[orwell_bruh]

One implication of what you write seems to be that every property owner is incentevized to NIMBY any improvements to the area that they don't care about. For example, if I am "child free" I will now oppose the building of schools and playgrounds on the basis that they make my LVT go up with no benefit to me.

This looks more like a way to destroy society than prudent tax policy.

[Kbelicius]

> For example, if I am "child free" I will now oppose the building of schools and playgrounds on the basis that they make my LVT go up with no benefit to me.

It would raise the value of your land.

[leoedin]

I think the problem is, for many people, the value of their land is kind of irrelevant. If you are using land by living on it, and want to live on it because it's near your friends, family, community, place of work etc, then the value of that land to someone else doesn't really matter. Maybe when you die and pass it to your kids, it would be great if it was valuable. But in the mean time (which for most people is many decades), an increase in value only really means an increase in monthly outgoings with no financial benefit to you.

Perhaps that's the point - in order for cities to stay dynamic and fair, we need to make everyone pay something close to market value for their land - even those who bought it a long time ago. But doing so is unlikely to make those people very happy.

[chongli]

You can’t make everyone happy all the time. I’m a lot more okay with a situation in which a person is compelled to sell their very valuable property because they can’t afford the taxes than I am with people being unable to afford housing.

If LVT helps to loosen up some undeveloped/underdeveloped land and get it into the hands of a willing developer then that is a big win for the fight against the housing crisis.

[orwell_bruh]

That's the kind of fine print that would kill any popular support for LVT.

It's also a false dichotomy. We don't need LVT to solve housing. We don't even know if LVT would solve housing. On the other hand, we know exactly how to solve housing. People just don't want to.

[chongli]

We don't even know if LVT would solve housing.

We'll just have to wait and see then. Detroit is going to try it out and we'll see how it works for them.

we know exactly how to solve housing. People just don't want to.

It's a collective action problem. One of the ways we usually solve those is through government action. LVT is a candidate for exactly that!

[cultureswitch]

> I think the problem is, for many people, the value of their land is kind of irrelevant.

Well that's a problem with those people if they think their most valuable capital asset is irrelevant.

It is relevant, because without LVT, the tax code is literally encouraging inefficient use of land. Housing prices consistently rising five times faster than salaries is a huge problem, and it is caused by inefficient land use.

[invalidOrTaken]

>I think the problem is, for many people, the value of their land is kind of irrelevant.

If only that were so! Then the American real estate market wouldn't have been artificially stacked in favor of homeowners for the last eighty years.

[kaibee]

> One implication of what you write seems to be that every property owner is incentevized to NIMBY any improvements to the area that they don't care about. For example, if I am "child free" I will now oppose the building of schools and playgrounds on the basis that they make my LVT go up with no benefit to me.

This already happens just with more economic inefficiency under a property-tax regime. People already vote against improvements that would cause their taxes to go up.

[dukeyukey]

The benefit is the land you own is now more valuable.

[orwell_bruh]

This benefit is hypothetical as long as you are not selling your land.

So, up to the point where you would actually sell your land, LVT is simply a liability. Even if eventually you sell are not guranteed to actually make the amount implied by the LVT you have been paying.

Let's think about what structures and incentives and ways of thinking we would foster here. Everyone a property speculator! That worked out so well with housing.

Meanwhile the people who just want to raise a family in peace and stability can now be priced out of their homes because their neighborhood got too "good". And that's just the goldilocks analysis.

In grim reality, city councils can use this to soft-evict anyone, anywhere without giving a reason by simply raising the estimated land value. The corruption is going to be off the charts.

[bluGill]

The point of LVT is to punish you if you could sell for less. That is if you own a small house next to sky scrapers, if you would sell someone would snatch up your house, tear it down, and build another sky scrapper.

Which is also why I don't think it helps Detroit today as they don't have the problem problem of land that someone else would build up on