Ah more carve outs for boomers. I knew it had to be in there somewhere.
We’re so addicted to spending that anything that leads to generational wealth is fair game for governments to loot?
A much better option would be to target the wealth inequality that is driving a lot of these problems (e.g. by ensuring basic needs like medical care, encouraging unionization, etc.). However, there isn't the political will to do that.
It came from renters and first time home owners putting money into the housing market.
Your grandma is doing the looting.
Now public spenders think she owes them what she spent her life building.
If she lives in the middle of a city, then yes her taxes may increase.
I'd love to build my own house, but it's practically impossible for my generation because of the policies those older generations have voted for.
> and lives on a fixed income. Should she be forced to sell (assuming she couldn’t afford LVT)
Yes. There aren't enough places for the rest of us to live, at least not anywhere where there's work, so those of us who are doing something productive (i.e. not lucky enough to be paid a "fixed income" out of other people's taxes) should get priority. If the older generation doesn't like it, they should make it legal to build more housing so that there's enough for everyone.
> for an investment she took all the risk to develop?
Part of the point of LVT is that it mitigates the risk. If the place where she built it becomes popular, she doesn't just get to trouser all the gains. But if the place where she built it becomes unpopular, her taxes drop.
(However, it might still be a vote winner. Voters aren't exactly the brightest.)
The gentrification situation is similar: if someone is living in a single-family home in an area that is filling up with apartments, they're using the land much less efficiently than a replacement structure would. As land values slowly increase, the owner would be prompted to eventually sell to someone who would put it to higher value use. You could have some speed bumps in the policy to make sure this doesn't happen too fast, but if you stop it entirely you're just giving up on productive land use.
It's worth noting that property taxes have the same dynamic, since they also incorporate land value in them. The difference though is that _property taxes discourage development_, which contributes to higher rents. Land value taxes do not have this problem; a world where we suddenly swap to LVTs is a world with many more buildings and much lower average rents.
It's no coincidence that people who support LVTs are typically YIMBYs -- we want to reform urban planning and land use to make it easier to build things.
An LVT gives no such incentives. LVT is explicitly agnostic about how the land is being used. You pay the same, no matter how the land is being used. That's why it's economically efficient.
However, a conventional property tax (and also income tax and capital gains tax etc) disincentivise developing. An LVT can help raise enough revenue to be able to lower or eliminate those other taxes, and thus indirectly help remove disincentives to developing.
So under property taxes, the parking lot owner can afford to wait and have the lot sit empty; under an LVT, they have an incentive to develop.
The LVT has no influence on building.
If you draw a two-by-two matrix where the columns are property tax yes/no and the rows are LVT yes/no, you will find that the rows have no influence at all, and it's all about which column you are in.
maybe this would encourage them to actually pay attention to the plight of their neighbors instead of the "fuck you, I've got mine" NIMBY attitudes they so regularly take.
> If you don't allow deferment of the tax, pensioners might have to move unwillingly (low income that may not cover the tax). Most proposals allow deferment for retirees until sale of the property, though, so it's kinda a non-issue.
Otherwise, banks can do that kind of deferral for you with something called a reverse mortgage.
If you don't allow deferment of the tax, pensioners might have to move unwillingly (low income that may not cover the tax). Most proposals allow deferment for retirees until sale of the property, though, so it's kinda a non-issue.
In general, if your circumstances change unexpectedly then you might be unable to pay the tax and thus lose ownership of your property. This already is the case for renters, but it does mean a somewhat reduced sense of security for home owners too. Mind you, this is already the case for any existing property tax or council rates, which exist in many/most places, so it's also kinda a non-issue.