Would you explain how as a potential buyer of raw land it will become more affordable to me with the land value tax? Doesn't that just move part of the cost to taxes instead of up front pricing?
One of the ideas kicking around is that there is so much extra low-interest money kicking around that people snapped up real estate with bidding wars, perhaps as an inflation hedge. That one makes sense to me. But discounting the price of real estate through taxation disincentives doesn't make sense, because the one paying the tax is ultimately the property owner(s). So the owner is still paying the price, only now he's splitting the payment check to two entities: he's paying (1) the previous owner and (2)a rent-seeking tax machine enforced by men with guns. Any cost savings would effectively be by turning it into a hybrid ownership, hybrid open ended lease with society being the part owner, and thus could be considered a cheapened form of ownership rather than the same thing for better value.
In effect, LVT is saying "land is cheaper... if you're only buying N% of it and society owns the rest." Well of course it's true... but remember you're paying your rent-seeking landlord (government) your annual lease payment on their (100-N)% ownership. Move N to 0, and you now don't have to spend anything on the land, but everyone is a serf to government ownership of land. In effect, LVT is fractional communism of the land, with extremes of N=100% being full individual property rights and N=0% being full communism.
One of the ideas kicking around is that there is so much extra low-interest money kicking around that people snapped up real estate with bidding wars, perhaps as an inflation hedge. That one makes sense to me. But discounting the price of real estate through taxation disincentives doesn't make sense, because the one paying the tax is ultimately the property owner(s). So the owner is still paying the price, only now he's splitting the payment check to two entities: he's paying (1) the previous owner and (2)a rent-seeking tax machine enforced by men with guns. Any cost savings would effectively be by turning it into a hybrid ownership, hybrid open ended lease with society being the part owner, and thus could be considered a cheapened form of ownership rather than the same thing for better value.
In effect, LVT is saying "land is cheaper... if you're only buying N% of it and society owns the rest." Well of course it's true... but remember you're paying your rent-seeking landlord (government) your annual lease payment on their (100-N)% ownership. Move N to 0, and you now don't have to spend anything on the land, but everyone is a serf to government ownership of land. In effect, LVT is fractional communism of the land, with extremes of N=100% being full individual property rights and N=0% being full communism.