← Back to context

Comment by iamnothere

4 days ago

I am curious how this intersects with a land value tax. Many LVT proponents try to draw in urbanists by noting its effect on density (LVT should economically increase density). But looking into it a little bit it sounds like that effect may be stronger in dense urban areas, with lower density areas less affected. I was curious because an LVT would likely also help undo distortion in the property market. Perhaps the two ideas are comparable after all; policies to encourage lower density wouldn’t necessarily be undone by an LVT.

In the real world, though, a Georgist style LVT probably has about as much chance to be enacted as any of these other policies. Unfortunately I think we’re going to run the current system into the ground.

> I am curious how this intersects with a land value tax.

I have not run the numbers, but intuitively it seems that this tax will kill the SFH long before it starts affecting the dense office space.

> In the real world, though, a Georgist style LVT probably has about as much chance to be enacted as any of these other policies. Unfortunately I think we’re going to run the current system into the ground.

I think there is a real chance, there is this current of massive dissatisfaction. People _feel_ that something is just not right with the current situation. With the populists proposing the usual easy solutions: "it's all immigrants, ICE them out" or "it's all fault of the end stage capitalism, we need socialized grocery stores".