You don't understand correctly. LVT is basically just property tax that doesn't assess the structure that's built on the land. So, land near a subway stop or bus terminal or downtown offices would be taxed higher as compared to land in the outskirts of town or in suburbs.

You are thinking more of something like Glen Weyl's Radical Markets proposals.

Guess I got some terms mixed up. Thanks for clearing that up.

My taxes are assessed as land and property, with the majority of the valuation coming from the land. Is LVT a big departure from what we currently have in most US states?

A "true" LVT calls for land tax rate of around 80% and getting rid of all other taxes. It's a huge change from how property taxes currently work.

> If I understand it correctly, LVT would allow people to state what they think their property is worth and pay taxes accordingly. They could put down any value but anyone could buy it from them at that value.

That's one approach. Another is for property appraisers to determine the land value - something which is already pretty commonly done.

> How could you even say the property is yours?

It never was. All land "ownership" consists of borrowing a portion of a nation-state's sovereign territory. LVT makes that explicit, requiring land "owners" to pay what's actually due to society (rather than a tiny fraction thereof as is the status quo).

You're thinking of Glen Weyl's wealth tax proposal.

I’m not sure why LVT would be assessed this way? I’m pretty sure the idea would be to keep the same assessment mechanisms, but tax only land, not improvements.

This is not what LVT is. This is one potential mechanism to find the price of assets so they can be taxed.