[nerdsniper]

That would somewhat defeat the purpose of the LVT. The point is to force landowners to develop their land. A "fix" would be to make access to capital easier.

Optimum development in many areas isn't necessarily a large mid-rise or high-rise. For most areas, the maximum that the roads and other utilities could support would be dense townhomes, triplexes or quadplexes. Outside of the very highest-demand areas, the LVT would mainly encourage land owners to build additional units on under-utilized square footage or build up a bit. Increasing housing in an area necessarily requires access to capital - so that's what should be provided.

It's not perfectly fair to everyone; it would enrich current landowners. But lower-income/wealth individuals would also benefit because they'd get access to more affordable housing in the areas that they need to live.

[greenie_beans]

> But lower-income/wealth individuals would also benefit because they'd get access to more affordable housing in the areas that they need to live.

how does this create affordable housing? taxes are only one piece of why housing is so expensive. the landowners would need a return on their investment, which they would get by raising rent. this is the core problem imo -- costs for construction and labor and permitting and taxes requiring higher rent in order to make the investment worthwhile.

the offset of lower taxes will absolutely not pay for the cost to "fully utilize" the property.

[some_random]

The theory here is that people who aren't getting "enough value" out of the land will be forced to sell to developers who will turn them into, among other things, houses.

[greenie_beans]

yes i know, that is the "theory" in a logical vacuum. that just reinforces my original point that it will hurt the middle class and only benefit wealthy people. especially since the tax would make the land cheaper (in LVT theory), so when you are forced to sell it you're gonna have to sell at a lower price than you'd like (that is the entire logic of LVT: make land cheaper to encourage more building).

you can't just wave a wand to build housing if the taxes change to LVT. we all know that developers don't build affordable housing. the margins are much more attractive to build luxury housing...it's the incentive structure. housing is expensive to build, and those investors will require an ROI.

terrible idea! the more you look at it, the worse and worse it sounds.

[jimlawruk]

> The point is to force landowners to develop their land.

The point is to ensure landowners don't sit on land. If taxes go up on your vacation home that you spend two weeks a year in, you will be incentivized to sell it or rent it out more. Both of which benefits the public at large. Not to mention it is a fairer tax than an income tax or wealth tax.

[greenie_beans]

most of the vacation homes in vermont are in rural areas. so they wouldn't get penalized by the tax if the purpose of LVT is to increase taxes in urban areas.