[throwaway092323]

> The LVT idea isn't really to tax the bare land, it is to tax it as if it was being used by the most financially productive way possible.

Yes and no. You're not taxing the land as if it was bare or as if it was full; you're taxing it based on the perceived value to a developer.

> So, tell me how is that not a tax that is based on something that doesn't actually exist today? The assessor can say: Sure, it's just bare dirt, worth nothing right now, but you could have a skyscraper there and if you did, it'd be worth a lot. So we'll pretend it's worth a lot and tax based on that.

The value of an empty lot is approximately equal to the value of the developed lot right next to it. This is already being done.

> The other bad consequence of LVT is that it's supposed to force every bit of land to the most financially productive use. Do you want to live in such a society? Something like a free playground is never the most income-generating use for a patch of land, but it's a wonderful thing to have in towns.

Government-owned land could be tax-free since (in theory) it's being used for public good.

[jjav]

> The value of an empty lot is approximately equal to the value of the developed lot right next to it. This is already being done.

So I feel like you just agreed with my premise, no?

The value (and thus the tax) on my empty lot with nothing but dirt is going to be set by the tax of the developed lot right next to it, which might contain a highrise apartment building.

So you're saying I will be taxed on the value of an imaginary building I don't actually have, just because the neighboring lot has one. So there's no way I can afford to pay that since the bare dirt doesn't give me any income. So I will lose this land due to the tax.

Am I wrong?

[throwaway092323]

> So I feel like you just agreed with my premise, no?

Maybe. I can't tell if we're talking past each other.

> The value (and thus the tax) on my empty lot with nothing but dirt is going to be set by the tax of the developed lot right next to it, which might contain a highrise apartment building.

Yes, the empty lot will be higher because of the highrise apartment next to it, BUT...

> So you're saying I will be taxed on the value of an imaginary building I don't actually have, just because the neighboring lot has one.

No, because the appraiser wouldn't include the building's value; they'd only be appraising the average value of land in the area.

> So there's no way I can afford to pay that since the bare dirt doesn't give me any income. So I will lose this land due to the tax.

That's intentional. If the land is only profitable for highrise apartments, then you should sell it to someone who can afford to build some. Note that this would help with the housing crisis.

[jjav]

> > So there's no way I can afford to pay that since the bare dirt doesn't give me any income. So I will lose this land due to the tax.

> That's intentional.

Ok so it's true and intentional. Thus my statement at the top of the thread, LVT is a way to take land away from people.

[throwaway092323]

Taking away land isn't the goal; it's just the logical consequence of making it prohibitively expensive to rent-seek.

The problem goes away if you don't treat land ownership as a right. What is the advantage of letting people possess empty lots?

[jjav]

> Taking away land isn't the goal

Earlier you said it is intentional, which to me is the same as saying it is a goal.

> What is the advantage of letting people possess empty lots?

Maybe not too bad if it is truly an empty lot. I've been using empty lot in the thread as it is the minimum possible value, but LVT hurts people particularly when the lot isn't empty.

Imagine that lot contains your home, one you've lived and loved for decades and raised your family in and you're rather fond of it. Just because an 8-plex goes up next door, shouldn't mean now you are forced out because they start taxing your little house as if it was an 8 unit building.

LVT is based on the cold clinical idea that land is nothing but an investment that must be squeezed to it's maximum possible profit at all times, without any consideration given to what would be nicer to have there. I would hate to live in a society like that.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, LVT means we should bulldoze Central Park in NYC and fill it with tall apartment buildings. Just imagine the trillions of dollars of increased value!

[throwaway092323]

> Imagine that lot contains your home, one you've lived and loved for decades and raised your family in and you're rather fond of it. Just because an 8-plex goes up next door, shouldn't mean now you are forced out because they start taxing your little house as if it was an 8 unit building.

Except your house wouldn't be taxed like it was an 8-unit building. The tax would only go up if the 8-plex increased demand for the land itself. If it's a poorly-placed 8-plex, the opposite could actually happen; but if the land value does go up, it would only go up a little bit unless they started developing a lot in your area, at which point you'd have the same sorts of problems either way.

> LVT is based on the cold clinical idea that land is nothing but an investment...

No. LVT discourages land investment. LVT is based on the idea that land belongs to everyone, so no one should profit just off of owning land.