[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.