orwell_bruh

That's the kind of fine print that would kill any popular support for LVT.

It's also a false dichotomy. We don't need LVT to solve housing. We don't even know if LVT would solve housing. On the other hand, we know exactly how to solve housing. People just don't want to.

Yes, I identify as someone with reliable heating and power who eats real food, has many children and like to go on vacation from time to time.

Btw, it's not me being deceived but eventually you'll figure that out, I am sure.

This benefit is hypothetical as long as you are not selling your land.

So, up to the point where you would actually sell your land, LVT is simply a liability. Even if eventually you sell are not guranteed to actually make the amount implied by the LVT you have been paying.

Let's think about what structures and incentives and ways of thinking we would foster here. Everyone a property speculator! That worked out so well with housing.

Meanwhile the people who just want to raise a family in peace and stability can now be priced out of their homes because their neighborhood got too "good". And that's just the goldilocks analysis.

In grim reality, city councils can use this to soft-evict anyone, anywhere without giving a reason by simply raising the estimated land value. The corruption is going to be off the charts.

If I did see CO2 as a problem I'd still be against wind and solar and all the other harebrained schemes that are mathematically proven to be unable to even make a dent in climate change. However, they are guranteed to lower our standard of living substantially.

And a prediction that you'll be able to observe in the coming decades: a lot of those "minor" and "invented" concerns will be front and center once we all have EVs and solar in order to nudge us onto the next thousands of dollars spending or to tax us or simply to keep the eco spirituality of "humans bad" alive.

Technological solutions simply aren't wanted by "your" side and so, eventually, all technology will be attacked just as fossil fuel based ones are now.

One implication of what you write seems to be that every property owner is incentevized to NIMBY any improvements to the area that they don't care about. For example, if I am "child free" I will now oppose the building of schools and playgrounds on the basis that they make my LVT go up with no benefit to me.

This looks more like a way to destroy society than prudent tax policy.

I find that people like to sooth themselves with thoughts like that. "They can never ban X", "I would just do Y".

The state can absolute ban anything. It bans certain plants! This surveilance doesnt have to be 100%.

Big nets catch many fish but never all.

However, if you find a way to defeat this on a scale that matters like if too many people started using VPN then they'd just ban VPN, too.

Goto 0.