[strbean]

Wouldn't this same argument suggest nobody would want to increase their income because it will increase the amount of income tax they pay?

The property you own is going up in value! That would almost certainly outweigh the increase in LVT.

[LegionMammal978]

Under an LVT, almost all of the value of the surrounding improvements would be considered part of your land value, since even an empty lot in their vicinity would benefit from the surrounding improvements. Thus, a 100% LVT would capture 100% of the value someone might gain from the presence of those surrounding improvements. In the worst case, you personally benefit far less from those improvements than a typical renter would (e.g., bike lanes if you don't own a bike), so their presence is a net negative to you.

That's why income taxes are less than 100%. But some people advocate for a 100% LVT very seriously.

[strbean]

Sure, but

A) that's an argument against a 100% LVT, not against LVT. Some people (communists) also advocate very seriously for what is effectively a 100% income tax. That doesn't provide a good argument against income tax in general.

B) a 100% LVT would theoretically be equal to the rental value of the property each year. You as the owner would still be seeing your net worth increase. It's not like you're paying the entire value of the land as a tax each year. Such a scheme would essentially just undo all real property ownership.