| > This is fundamentally incorrect. It is a tax on the bare land. A tax on bare land based on what? I find these LVT discussions fascinating because we seem to be using same words to mean different things; while I see the LVT proponents truly believe what they say, I can't wrap my head around how that meaning comes from the statements. Let me try a different thought experiment. Let's say I own that acre of beachfront property in a resort town. Completely undeveloped. For some historical reason, there are restrictions on that land which prohibit any development of any kind in perpetuity. It must be left as-is forever, untouched by human hand. All the surrounding acre lots are valued at $100M (those lots don't have any restrictions, so they are built up with luxury condos owned by celebrities). Under LVT, is the tax on that acre very high or very low? Later something happens, let's say a constitutional amendment is passed which outlaws and overrules all such land restrictions. My bare plot of land is still bare, nothing on it. Under LVT, does the tax skyrocket overnight due to the constitutional amendment? |