[Aurornis]

The funniest thing about internet land value tax discourse is all of the people who don’t realize that land is already taxed in cities like this.

As the other commenter discovered, the tax rate is very significant for this property.

But the core proposition doesn’t make sense, either. A land value tax wouldn’t force a property to be used for a less profitable use case. A LVT forces the property to be used for the most profitable use case because the tax would prevent people from using it for less profitable activities because that’s the only way to pay the high LVT.

[arjie]

Well the desirable property of a land value tax is that it is used entirely in lieu of the current “land plus improvements” tax.

Naturally people dislike this because using land for less than economically optimal uses is usually desired by the landowner and taxing improvements means that someone with a more economically optimal use makes them less of a competitor for the land than the present owner.

[Aurornis]

Most of the pro-LVT people I encounter have a belief that pure LVT will benefit them and harm corporations. The idea has become entangled in the pro-individual, anti-corporate mentality as a tool for us to wield against corporations. The most common LVT argument I hear is something about forcing developers to convert parking lots into housing units.

The example above shows that pure LVT would have the inverse effect: If the land becomes valuable for something other than housing, the taxes rise to the point that the only logical conclusion is to use it for commercial activities.

It’s at this point that the conversation turns to carving out land value tax exceptions for the 80 year old grandma in her forever home, which turns into more exceptions for normal homeowners, which slowly gets us closer and closer to our current system where we’re not ruthlessly taxing properties based on the value of the land alone.

[arjie]

How delightful! I had no idea other people had this view of LVT enthusiasts. I certainly think that if commercial uses outweigh housing they should take priority under these circumstances. There are externalities to be internalized but the general idea is that anyway.

[scotty79]

If at least 1% of people selling the property there don't cite land tax as the main reason for sale, then it's too low.