Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)
I wonder what percentage of people in California would go bankrupt if LVT were passed implemented there.
Anyone, residential or commercial, with a mortgage would simultaneously find a massive amount of their net value erased while stuck with huge monthly payments on top of massively increased tax bills, unable to sell assuming the higher taxes drive down property prices.
Places like AZ and Florida already solved this issue. If there is hardship the property tax accumulates as a lien on the property to be claimed when the property is sold.
You could certainly phase in an implementation over 20-30 years to give the economy time to adjust. Just interpolate the taxes.
In a state with fully implemented LVT, you would expect most people in dense cities to be living in multilevel housing that makes more efficient use of land. Eg if your condo building has 5 floors, you're splitting your land tax 5 ways.
Sprawling single level houses would be a relative luxury.
Isn't it easy to implement a threshold so it's only effective on holdings above a certain value, or exemptions for primary abode or something along these lines?
It's not difficult conceptually to come up with schemes to tax wealth which doesn't unduly harm non-wealthy individuals (however you would define that level for these purposes). It's just that for one reason or another these schemes are not implemented, and one of those reasons is (plausibly) the political influence of wealthy individuals
Problem is land value tax makes gentrification issues even worse, it's the exact opposite of prop13. Rich people move in around you or a highrise gets built and your tax rate increases extremely quickly.
Flat out wrong. Your choices aren't single family home or highrise. There are numerous other options in between. Duplexs, triplexs, fourplexs, mother-in-law suites, townhomes, live-work homes, cottages. There is a gulf of options in between single family home or NYC highrise.
Sure but when neighbors improving the land next to you results in your tax rate increasing significantly people obviously tend to be against that.
You're gonna fight hard against your neighbor adding a Duplex, triplex, fourplex, etc. because with an LVT your taxes very likely go up as a result.
Imagine the uproar when a developer comes in and converts some of the SFHs next to granny's house into a 4-plex and now granny's social security doesn't cover her taxes and she has to move to the old folks home. Sure she can theoretically take out a mortgage or second mortgage against the theoretical increased land value but now you're forcing granny into debt.
You pay tax based on unimproved land value so what your neighbor builds doesn't matter. In your scenario, for what you're talking about to happen, everyone in the neighborhood needs to be building fourplexes and opening local businesses which would change the makeup of the entire neighborhood and taxes would adjust accordingly. So no, your neighbor building a duplex doesn't spike grandmas taxes. Under the current system, grandmas neighbor building a fourplex can increase her property value and have her paying a higher property tax anyway.
It would take more than just your neighbor developing their land for your land to increase in value. land value taxes calculate the value of the undeveloped land as in land in denser areas is more valuable than suburban land. Unless all of your neighbor are putting up fourplexes changing the entire makeup of the neighborhood, your land value is unlikely to increase. This can't be said of property value where if your neighbor improves their property, your property value and property taxes might increase as a result.
Depends on the area. In the wealthy SF Bay Area, the schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. SF is "the most childless major city". Schools are drastically underfunded due to Prop 13 and the state kicks in a lot of money to make up for the difference.
Land is worth money because of improvements or detrimental choices. Manhattan and Staten Island have dramatically different valuations because of what’s there.
California needs a sane taxation system that doesn’t allow squatters to pay nothing for property taxes, but harshly punishes new homeowners.
"Location, location, location" is "LVT fantasy land"? That's practically the first rule of real estate.
Is a 1 acre empty lot in Palo Alto worth the same as a 1 acre empty lot in Mobile, Alabama? No improvements on either one so they should go for the same price, right?
Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)