>- Land values don’t go up just because you built something: **TRUE** ✅ *(A parcel’s land value depends only on the local land rate, which depends not on any individual parcel’s total market value, but on that of the the typical parcel)*
>- Side-by-side land pays the same: **TRUE** ✅ *(All land in an area is valued using the same local land rate)*
>- Vacant/underutilized land pays more than property tax: **TRUE** ✅ *(Vacant/underutilized land is valued the same as the typical local improved parcel, a massive shift from improved property to vacant/underutilized property)*
>- Land value proportionate to desirability/usefulness: **TRUE** ✅ *(Higher value areas yield higher land rates)*
>[…]
>
>Right now, one of the greatest bang-for-buck reforms in property assessment is to just get assessors to start applying land allocations the ***Right Way™****—*as locally uniform land rates *within* each assessment neighborhood—*even if they are totally plucking their target land allocation percentage out of thin air and applying it to the whole city.* Doing so will generate land values that have the correct economic incentives, and, at least in cases where the assessor is otherwise doing a good job, probably aren’t all that far off from “true” platonic land values anyways.
From a British perspective, thinking about a potential Lab-Lib-Green coalition in 2029, Labour and Lib Dems could accept the “wealth tax” demand from the Greens but it would be Land Value Tax (Green Party official policy) which is the most effective wealth tax (the Duke of Westminster didn’t pay any inheritance tax on the £10 billion worth of land he inherited, but with LVT he’d have to pay tax). Plus, it would grow the economy and lead to more homebuilding. I think if there is such a coalition, we need to implement LVT ASAP to accrue the positives in time for everyone to benefit.
1 Comment
Submission statement: Valuing land in the simplest way to implement Land Value Tax as quickly as possible.
https://preview.redd.it/cj53rm3e1gqg1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3ea48a0b3391156307fedeb4c50c731d943a07a
>- Land values don’t go up just because you built something: **TRUE** ✅ *(A parcel’s land value depends only on the local land rate, which depends not on any individual parcel’s total market value, but on that of the the typical parcel)*
>- Side-by-side land pays the same: **TRUE** ✅ *(All land in an area is valued using the same local land rate)*
>- Vacant/underutilized land pays more than property tax: **TRUE** ✅ *(Vacant/underutilized land is valued the same as the typical local improved parcel, a massive shift from improved property to vacant/underutilized property)*
>- Land value proportionate to desirability/usefulness: **TRUE** ✅ *(Higher value areas yield higher land rates)*
>[…]
>
>Right now, one of the greatest bang-for-buck reforms in property assessment is to just get assessors to start applying land allocations the ***Right Way™****—*as locally uniform land rates *within* each assessment neighborhood—*even if they are totally plucking their target land allocation percentage out of thin air and applying it to the whole city.* Doing so will generate land values that have the correct economic incentives, and, at least in cases where the assessor is otherwise doing a good job, probably aren’t all that far off from “true” platonic land values anyways.
From a British perspective, thinking about a potential Lab-Lib-Green coalition in 2029, Labour and Lib Dems could accept the “wealth tax” demand from the Greens but it would be Land Value Tax (Green Party official policy) which is the most effective wealth tax (the Duke of Westminster didn’t pay any inheritance tax on the £10 billion worth of land he inherited, but with LVT he’d have to pay tax). Plus, it would grow the economy and lead to more homebuilding. I think if there is such a coalition, we need to implement LVT ASAP to accrue the positives in time for everyone to benefit.