> If I understand correctly, the point of this article (one of several) is just to establish that a land tax would constitute a large amount of money.

We could make a land value tax constitute any amount we’d like.

Just take the value you want it to produce, divide by the assessed value of all of the land, and you have your tax rate.

That’s not an interesting question, though. The interesting part is whether or not that’s reasonable or fair, and to explore who wins and loses.

> Just take the value you want it to produce, divide by the assessed value of all of the land, and you have your tax rate.

That's how my city determines property tax rates! Cities in my province are not allowed to run a deficit. So every year, the city look as assessed value of all properties, how much budget it needs for the year, divides the two, and voila! Tax rate!

It's actually a bit more complicated because the residential and commercial tax rates are different and the city has revenue sources other than property taxes, but it is largely like that.

The Georgist answer is that the government wouldn't decide the value of the land, the market would. If the government is setting it, it's almost certainly not pricing it optimally.

If you tax the land at a rate greater than a 100% LVT, the market price of the building will be less than the improvement value, and therefore there will not be a good reason for builders to build. This will create distortions that are harmful and you will ultimately see less tax money.

More than 100% over how long?

You calculate the rent at day $500 per month and tax at 550 per month.

Remember the valuation is based on the rental value of the land, not the capital purchase of the land.

Its basically rent so it doesnt matter if you calculate it by day or by year.

This book review on the same site does a pretty good job in my opinion: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...