[bequanna]

Uh huh, so you’re taxing land based on some theoretical “highest and best use”?

This will only serve to punish small businesses who will see a huge jump in taxes, forcing some of them to sell to some large developer.

Pure academic nonsense. Punishing people for not doing what YOU want with THEIR land.

[Kbelicius]

> Uh huh, so you’re taxing land based on some theoretical “highest and best use”?

No, they tax based on the value of the land... I mean, it's in the name.

[bequanna]

We’re talking in circles then.

Land value + improvements is already taxed pretty much everywhere I am aware of.

[jjk166]

Yeah, and the goal is to remove the "+ improvements" part of the tax.

[throwaway092323]

> Uh huh, so you’re taxing land based on some theoretical “highest and best use”?

Someone has to eat the opportunity cost of sub-optimally used land. Would you rather it be corporations and house-flippers, or renters and homeowners?

> Pure academic nonsense.

Several places have implemented LVT (eg Pennsylvania). What's nonsense is treating it like idle theory-crafting when there's evidence to judge.

> Punishing people for not doing what YOU want with THEIR land.

Not all societies believe in land ownership to begin with. Owning land keeps other people from using it, so it should come with a sense of duty.

Also, no one under either system is arbitrating the correctness of land use to pick winners and losers. The free-market still decides what is or isn't effective land use; it's just that under LVT people are disincentivized from speculating on empty land.