In practice, land value taxes increase home ownership, so the actual displacement rate of a population might be the same or even less with LVT implemented.
> It would also encourage the childless to fight things like schools, as they would pay extra tax having them nearby.
Note that any existing property tax or council rates regime already theoretically has this effect too, but I don't really see this behaviour. It's a theoretical strategy that certain demographics could utilise, but not one that plays out in practice in any city I've ever seen.
This is the same as the existing tax system, where tax is proportional to (land value + buildings' value).
> High levels of displacement and instability.
Taxes would rise on undeveloped or underdeveloped properties, and fall on developed properties. The net effect would be an increase in total housing stock, as the relative cost of building and owning more units goes down.
> The proponents of this I have met are generally wanting to use it force seniors with paid off homes out of them so they can live in them instead (or often build on them, as they are property developers).
An LVT wouldn't have to work this way. The transition could be something like, set the LVT for each property the same as its current tax under the old system. But any future change in the value of buildings on the property don't affect its tax. This would mean seniors could continue paying the same tax they used to, while developers wouldn't get penalized for building more housing.
If you retire, or loose income, people currently pay less income taxes. You can also live frugally to cut down on sales taxes.
With LVT, taxes are detached from income and spending. Your taxes are also based on the whims of others. If your neighborhood gets trendy, you tax bill might double.
California for example is partially so dysfunctional because they don't have enough conventional property taxes.
Yes, conventional property taxes disincentise building, but not more than capital gains taxes or income taxes do. And in large parts of eg California houses only cost a small fraction of the land they sit on at the moment.
The opposite should be true because as density goes up the cost of services go down.
What's the alternative? Letting SFH leach off the current system paying less in taxes than the government spends to service them?
The proponents of this I have met are generally wanting to use it force seniors with paid off homes out of them so they can live in them instead (or often build on them, as they are property developers).
It also assumes that NIMBYism remains at the same level, which is challenging, as every new build or development nearby increases your own taxes. It would also encourage the childless to fight things like schools, as they would pay extra tax having them nearby.