[Spartan-S63]

That's the idea, though. If you're sitting on an undeveloped or underdeveloped parcel of land, you should bear the cost of the value of the land. If it's in a rural area, you can probably weather the tax burden because it's worth a lot less than a surface parking lot in an urban area.

The idea behind such taxation is to destroy the deadweight losses created by land speculators. You either buy the land, develop it, and bear the weight of the tax on the fair assessment of the land's value, or you don't buy the land at all.

Property tax is predicated on the value of the structure now. Land-value taxes are predicated on the value of the land, developed or not. That will fluctuate based on the desirability of the surrounding area.

The irony is that property taxes are predicated on the value of the structure, but the practicalities of market forces are that the land is what's actually valuable. So rather than keep playing this mis-labeled game, we should embrace land-value taxes and have municipalities asses taxes without regard to the structure, just the potential economic value of the land.

[nojvek]

One could say Property taxes are like wealth taxes. You are taxing unrealized gains. But IMO it's once of the best ways cities meet their expenses and everyone pays their fair share. It keeps property prices somewhat in check because it costs money speculate.

Land that can be developed into residential lots should be appraised at a higher value. There should be a 2-4 year period where a land owner has their opportunity to develop land, but then it should be taxed at rate of nearby developed lots.

Land ownership is almost a zero-sum game and should be well regulated for efficient demand and supply. Rent-seekers don't add any value, just suck it up into their fat pockets.