Taxes based on acreage are more common in rural and undeveloped countries; once a cadastre is established the tax is based on value.

Taxes based on acreage are more common in rural and undeveloped countries; once a cadastre is established the tax is based on value.

A lot that currently has an obsolete 1- or 2-story building in the middle of the downtown would get redeveloped, and instead of serving 1 street-level tenant, would provide venues for dozens of tenants, some commercial, some residential (depending on the market). That creates a vibrant marketplace, a walkable community, and the sort of density which supports a high quality frequent-service transportation system.

In the short-run, a tax on speculation would stimulate development. But, my point is that in the long run, driving out speculation hampers vibrancy. Although, in the case of LVT used more universally, it seems that the tax would be relatively neutral on speculation. So far, I can’t think of a downside of LVT. (in concept)

(And by untaxing buildings, we take away the disincentives to developing the land well where the market is seeking development — and that isn’t the farmland! Farmers would benefit: their specialized buildings and equipment are worth more than their land. We’d untax them.)

I wouldn’t advocate untaxing buildings. I was responding to an idea in the context that real estate taxes would be a two-tiered system where one tier would be the traditional and another tier a tax on unused land. My point was that if there was to be a two tiered system, I would prefer the second tier not single out speculation, but be applied evenly.

I suspect many people aspire to a little house in the suburbs with a lawn and a picket fence … but if we could offer them a modern, affordable home close to their work in a school district they had confidence in, many of them would trade the house and the commute for it. We ought to offer them the option … and it seems to me that Land Value Taxation is the only way we’re going to get there. LVT can lower the selling price of the land, which is a huge component of why urban housing is so expensive.

Since I have you here, can you please explain the main ways LVT encourages urban land usage as opposed to suburban sprawl? It seems it would encourage compactness, but I’d like to better understand the mechanisms. Thanks.

Yes, the land rent would be an ongoing cost, but it would be instead of the taxes on buildings and sales and wages, instead of a supplement to them, as it is now.

From what I’ve learned so far, I think I would support an LVT if (and only if) it replaces those other taxes. Unfortunately, the political likelihood seems very close to zero.

A lot that currently has an obsolete 1- or 2-story building in the middle of the downtown would get redeveloped, and instead of serving 1 street-level tenant, would provide venues for dozens of tenants, some commercial, some residential (depending on the market). That creates a vibrant marketplace, a walkable community, and the sort of density which supports a high quality frequent-service transportation system.

In the short-run, a tax on speculation would stimulate development. But, my point is that in the long run, driving out speculation hampers vibrancy. Although, in the case of LVT used more universally, it seems that the tax would be relatively neutral on speculation. So far, I can’t think of a downside of LVT. (in concept)

(And by untaxing buildings, we take away the disincentives to developing the land well where the market is seeking development — and that isn’t the farmland! Farmers would benefit: their specialized buildings and equipment are worth more than their land. We’d untax them.)

I wouldn’t advocate untaxing buildings. I was responding to an idea in the context that real estate taxes would be a two-tiered system where one tier would be the traditional and another tier a tax on unused land. My point was that if there was to be a two tiered system, I would prefer the second tier not single out speculation, but be applied evenly.

I suspect many people aspire to a little house in the suburbs with a lawn and a picket fence … but if we could offer them a modern, affordable home close to their work in a school district they had confidence in, many of them would trade the house and the commute for it. We ought to offer them the option … and it seems to me that Land Value Taxation is the only way we’re going to get there. LVT can lower the selling price of the land, which is a huge component of why urban housing is so expensive.

Since I have you here, can you please explain the main ways LVT encourages urban land usage as opposed to suburban sprawl? It seems it would encourage compactness, but I’d like to better understand the mechanisms. Thanks.

Yes, the land rent would be an ongoing cost, but it would be instead of the taxes on buildings and sales and wages, instead of a supplement to them, as it is now.

From what I’ve learned so far, I think I would support an LVT if (and only if) it replaces those other taxes. Unfortunately, the political likelihood seems very close to zero.