I was excited to read this article, but by the end it felt like a jumble of unrelated conjectures examined in isolation from each other that all seem to be presented in a way that deliberately ignores any downsides:
For example:
> Also, keep in mind that LVT would see the elimination of the portion of property tax that falls on buildings. I just checked my own property tax records (I live in the suburbs of a medium-sized town far from any major urban cores). If the assessed land share more than doubled to 40%, under a 100% LVT regime I'd actually save $545.05 on my property taxes every year–and that's without a Citizen's Dividend.
Picking the author’s house, applying arbitrary land value tax numbers to it, and declaring a net tax savings for the author as a victory for LVT is not really a useful data point. It seems that actually analyzing the winners and losers of a LVT would require a more thorough simulation, but that’s outside the scope of the article.
The article also had an unsettlingly high number of “If we assume that X is true, then Y is a reasonable conclusion” while completely sidestepping an examination of whether or not “X” was true or even reasonable.
The second part looks to be more interesting: I’d like to see some arguments for why a LVT wouldn’t just be passed along to the renters like every other expense is currently.
For example:
> Also, keep in mind that LVT would see the elimination of the portion of property tax that falls on buildings. I just checked my own property tax records (I live in the suburbs of a medium-sized town far from any major urban cores). If the assessed land share more than doubled to 40%, under a 100% LVT regime I'd actually save $545.05 on my property taxes every year–and that's without a Citizen's Dividend.
Picking the author’s house, applying arbitrary land value tax numbers to it, and declaring a net tax savings for the author as a victory for LVT is not really a useful data point. It seems that actually analyzing the winners and losers of a LVT would require a more thorough simulation, but that’s outside the scope of the article.
The article also had an unsettlingly high number of “If we assume that X is true, then Y is a reasonable conclusion” while completely sidestepping an examination of whether or not “X” was true or even reasonable.
The second part looks to be more interesting: I’d like to see some arguments for why a LVT wouldn’t just be passed along to the renters like every other expense is currently.