[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.

[phil21]

I’m for LVT precisely for the express purpose of not carving out exceptions for any landowner. 80 year old ladies included.

Basically I see it as a way to get closer to the ideal of making land speculation no longer a thing. Regular homeowners included.

If you buy a home for $100k, in theory after you adjust for inflation it should sell for less due to depreciation of the structures on the property. The fact we assume a home is an investment is the root of the evil.

Of course this does not mean LVT is the only way to make this happen. It just seems the fairest to me. I still want people and corporations to be incentivized to develop and improve land - just not rewarded for sitting on it forever. The standard objection of 80 year olds in forever homes sitting on prime real estate better used for young professionals with families who still need to commute to work is exactly the sort of folks who should not be rewarded for such behavior.

[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.