[jjav]

> Most people do not live on a plot of land where a highrise is economically feasible.

Over the whole country, you're right.

But let's be honest, the strongest advocates of LVT are not pushing to implement it in some sleepy village in the middle of nowhere just to lower taxes on the villagers.

LVT is always brought up as a solution in expensive areas as a tool to pull people out of their homes (because there is no way they could afford the taxes so they have to move out) and give the land to corporate developers to build big apartment buildings.

[epistasis]

Wrong. The most serious proposal for LVT right now is in Detroit, where it is going to be used to give resident home owners a tax break, and charge land speculators more than they are currently being charged.

My political organization that advocates for LVT is also driving through bills for social housing, not for big corporate developers.

Where do these strange ideas come from?

[jjav]

> Where do these strange ideas come from?

Here is a link to a site that is promoting LVT, so any biases they have would be in favor of LVT.

https://www.progress.org/articles/the-implementation-of-land...

Quote:

"A third possibility is for the retired persons to move to a lower-rent neighborhood, as many anyway move to assisted living or to an apartment."

We can see that it is an accepted goal of LVT to pull poorer/fixed-income people out of their homes so developers can have the land.