[sokoloff]

In 2025, a certain supply of units is available for rent in some relevant market. In 2026 an LVT is enacted shifting taxes onto land owners (and away from income earners).

Do you expect rents at the end of 2026 to be higher or lower than now in that market?

[eru]

In your scenario, we are enacting an LVT and lowering some other tax (say, income taxes).

The LVT itself will have no impact on rents. However, lowering income taxes will increase rents, independent of LVT. (Eg if they'd just lowered income taxes, because some rich sheikh wrote the government a big check for fun.)

That's assuming all else being equal, eg number of units available for rent.

[protocolture]

>The LVT itself will have no impact on rents.

Any tax levied on landlords will impact rents. Any business where the input costs increase, has an effect on prices. If you have a heck of a lot of competition AND the businesses can eat the increase you might get away with it. But LVT is a regressive tax that doesnt care about income, so the "businesses" aka landlords in this scenario can (and probably will) have tax that reduces their income to a deficit. Theres no getting around this, you need to stop pretending that LVT is magic.

[eru]

Why do you care so much about 'regressive'?

Yes, only an income tax cares about your income. Eg a capital gains tax also doesn't care about your income.

So you are also arguing conversely that giving landowners some free gifts will lead to a drop in rents? Colour me skeptical.

Prices are set by demand and supply. For a cost to be passed on, supply must shrink.

There's nothing in the LVT that would cause supply to shrink.

[protocolture]

>Why do you care so much about 'regressive'?

Why do want to do everything in your power to ignore it? Stop trying to use your ignorance to selectively ignore arguments.

Regressive taxes hurt people which is why progressive taxation exists.

>So you are also arguing conversely that giving landowners some free gifts will lead to a drop in rents?

No, to drop rents you need both an increase in supply and a reduced costs for suppliers.

>Prices are set by demand and supply. For a cost to be passed on, supply must shrink.

This is a bonkers statement. "For a cost to be passed on supply must shrink". Only in a perfectly elastic supply/demand market is this true, and only if I sneak "relative to demand" in there. We have been around and around on this point. But its been demonstrated false over and over again.

Whats worse, is the other outcome identified, is supply shrinking. So not only are you wrong about prices, your statement is already inclusive of the effects of LVT.

>There's nothing in the LVT that would cause supply to shrink.

Ok you have to be a religious zealot to still be spouting this.

If the cost of supply houses to the rental market becomes higher than the income expected from supplying houses to the rental market, supply to the rental market will shrink.

LVT is a regressive tax, in that it doesn't care about income. So landlords with tight margins are going to be just as affected as landords with good margins. Any landlord making 1 dollar more than rental income, faced with a new 100 dollar LVT, is going to either withdraw their property or raise rent at least as far as 99 dollars to make it worthwhile to hold the asset.

Simply repeating your religious mantra does not change this obvious fact.

[sokoloff]

"Landlords will just eat the LVT" makes as much sense as "China will pay the tariffs".