|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway092323
962 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
You left out the main gist of my sentence:
> nothing but an investment that must be squeezed to it's maximum possible profit at all times
Sounds like that is exactly what LVT is. It becomes unaffordable (due to taxes) to do anything other than squeezing the maximum profit out of every square meter of land.
The result would be every lot in town is built to the same profit-maximization potential and the moment something more profitable comes along everyone is encouraged (due to increasing taxes) to tear all down and build the new thing that squeezes even more profit out of it.
It sounds like a terrible dystopia, I still haven't heard any argument that makes LVT sound like it would lead to building a nice town to live in. The US is already far too concerned about profit above all else to the detriment of mental health, imagine LVT on top of this squeezing maximum profit from land at all times.