Re:The High Cost of Expensive Housing (and How Auckland Fixe...
by robocat on Monday January 30, 2023 @05:33AM
(#34578018)
> Land Value Tax is that it is set based on the value of the things that could be built on that land, not ones that currently are located there
Everything I have read just uses nearby property prices. Very similar to GV valuations as we currently do in New Zealand with our council rates (just use that figure rather than another). As market prices shift, your Capital Value remains relatively constant (maybe inflation less depreciation), and the Land Value shifts to meet market value (usually upwards, whenever your property rating is updated).
In New Zealand we currently have a partial land-value-tax called rates, although they are usually far below LVT suggested taxation rates. Rates are low, but still a significant drain. Mortgages are also similar to a LVT - your mortgage has to pay the land value - and that is certainly more than suggested LVT. Apparently the point of an LVT is not to get revenues, so I don’t quite understand how that works. A tax that is less than a mortgage already is - hmmmmmm - how can that help?
Ironically house prices are set by people bidding against each other for how big their mortgage can be. The tax won’t shift house prices, just shift money from private equity to government? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34097478
The arguments I have read are usually so vague and seem to always miss critical details. I am not a property or economics specialist, yet I see glaring problems and omissions in well received blogs: that doesn’t bode well IMHO.
Everything I have read just uses nearby property prices. Very similar to GV valuations as we currently do in New Zealand with our council rates (just use that figure rather than another). As market prices shift, your Capital Value remains relatively constant (maybe inflation less depreciation), and the Land Value shifts to meet market value (usually upwards, whenever your property rating is updated).
In New Zealand we currently have a partial land-value-tax called rates, although they are usually far below LVT suggested taxation rates. Rates are low, but still a significant drain. Mortgages are also similar to a LVT - your mortgage has to pay the land value - and that is certainly more than suggested LVT. Apparently the point of an LVT is not to get revenues, so I don’t quite understand how that works. A tax that is less than a mortgage already is - hmmmmmm - how can that help?
Ironically house prices are set by people bidding against each other for how big their mortgage can be. The tax won’t shift house prices, just shift money from private equity to government? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34097478
The arguments I have read are usually so vague and seem to always miss critical details. I am not a property or economics specialist, yet I see glaring problems and omissions in well received blogs: that doesn’t bode well IMHO.