This post is a plain-language explainer on Georgism and the land value tax (LVT). It covers how an LVT differs from a standard property tax (it bills the value of the land without the building, so an empty lot in a good location costs as much to hold as a developed one), why economists have long considered it one of the least distortionary taxes, and why the burden mostly falls on landowners rather than tenants, since land supply is fixed.
It then looks at how parts of the idea work in practice in Singapore and Hong Kong (public ownership and leasing), Taiwan (a direct land value tax that stayed small because of low assessments), and Pennsylvania (split-rate taxes, including the Oates and Schwab study of Pittsburgh). The piece is upfront about the hard parts, including assessment quality, cash-poor owners, and the loss in land value for existing owners, and it suggests a gradual phase-in starting with a split rate, with deferrals for low-income owners.
This should interest the sub because it makes a pro-housing, pro-growth case for tax reform while taking the tradeoffs and implementation problems seriously.
1 Comment
This post is a plain-language explainer on Georgism and the land value tax (LVT). It covers how an LVT differs from a standard property tax (it bills the value of the land without the building, so an empty lot in a good location costs as much to hold as a developed one), why economists have long considered it one of the least distortionary taxes, and why the burden mostly falls on landowners rather than tenants, since land supply is fixed.
It then looks at how parts of the idea work in practice in Singapore and Hong Kong (public ownership and leasing), Taiwan (a direct land value tax that stayed small because of low assessments), and Pennsylvania (split-rate taxes, including the Oates and Schwab study of Pittsburgh). The piece is upfront about the hard parts, including assessment quality, cash-poor owners, and the loss in land value for existing owners, and it suggests a gradual phase-in starting with a split rate, with deferrals for low-income owners.
This should interest the sub because it makes a pro-housing, pro-growth case for tax reform while taking the tradeoffs and implementation problems seriously.