It's difficult to see how all the radical changes they promise would happen if property tax rates were lowered on average. That would tend to let people keep owning the property they have.
It's difficult to see how all the radical changes they promise would happen if property tax rates were lowered on average. That would tend to let people keep owning the property they have.
Some people might pay more tax, if lets say your area develops into a dense city core over 40 years your land will now be worth many millions, at that point your tax would be comparable to the skyscrapers around you. Which is reasonable since you are hurting the progress of the city at that point, and if you sell your property you will have so much money that you can easily move slightly outside the boundaries of the city core. But in most cases you wont strike it rich with your land getting worth that much.
Let's say someone has a house in a gentrifying area. The house isn't taxed but the land is, and property values are rising. Encouraging density means making it financially difficult for them to stay there, so they will sell to a developer. If the tax doesn't do that, LVT doesn't provide enough incentive to discourage speculation.
LVT advocates need to own up to what they're trying to do. There will be winners and losers. Someone with little income (retired) and property in a desirable location is going to lose.
And this is exactly the sort of thing that got Prop 13 passed in California. Homeowners really don't like it when their property tax goes up.
Can even keep prop 13, the important part is that improving the land shouldn't increase your tax as that discourages building things and encourages wasteful usage of that land like huge parking lots for a tiny shop etc. Land value tax would force those companies to sell or actually use it better, which is a good thing, they can't just sit on mostly unimproved land hoping the value goes up with time while paying almost nothing.
Most advocates of a higher LVT also advocate for a provision to defer the payment of the tax until sale of the property for pensioners.
You don’t?
LVT supplanting all other tax would absolutely mean it’d be ruinous to use land in ways contrary to the wishes of the government body socially-engineering land-use policy.
As it stands right now land ownership is just used to pass down dynastic wealth and reap economic rents (profit at the expense of someone else as opposed to earning it through work).