You can tax certain things a certain amount and you get diminishing returns. For example, if you had a 50% wealth tax, it would stop collecting anything pretty quickly and would cause pretty big economic disruption.
Land value tax has the potential to collect a lot of money with less disruption.
There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
There's only $8 trillion billionaire wealth. So already 5%/year would be less. And there's a huge incentive and ability to avoid it by moving.
And I rarely ever even hear suggestions for wealth tax rates around 5%. So then if you had a wealth tax, well land is wealth, and you'd be leaving a ton on the table as you could still have the land value tax at 5% of the capitalized value.
That money could be spent on public services that poorer people will benefit from more like transit, schools, or even local hospitals and subsidized healthcare. A typical point by LVT supporters here is that these services have the impact of raising land rents.
Most taxes have this dynamic:
tax -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rents go up -> land owners benefit
LVT has this dynamic:
Tax land -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rent goes up -> tax land more so land owners don't benefit
Landlords, developers, builders etc. should earn the return on the constructed housing, not the land.
> There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
Leasing the land of the US? That's your big revelation?
listen to the other commenter, fixing it means reducing wealth disparity.
The onus is on you to describe some mechanism by which abolishing almost all taxation will magically fix wealth discrepancy.
I don't know what degree "fixing" means.
You can tax certain things a certain amount and you get diminishing returns. For example, if you had a 50% wealth tax, it would stop collecting anything pretty quickly and would cause pretty big economic disruption.
Land value tax has the potential to collect a lot of money with less disruption.
There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
There's only $8 trillion billionaire wealth. So already 5%/year would be less. And there's a huge incentive and ability to avoid it by moving.
And I rarely ever even hear suggestions for wealth tax rates around 5%. So then if you had a wealth tax, well land is wealth, and you'd be leaving a ton on the table as you could still have the land value tax at 5% of the capitalized value.
That money could be spent on public services that poorer people will benefit from more like transit, schools, or even local hospitals and subsidized healthcare. A typical point by LVT supporters here is that these services have the impact of raising land rents.
Most taxes have this dynamic:
tax -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rents go up -> land owners benefit
LVT has this dynamic:
Tax land -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rent goes up -> tax land more so land owners don't benefit
Landlords, developers, builders etc. should earn the return on the constructed housing, not the land.
> There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.
Leasing the land of the US? That's your big revelation?
listen to the other commenter, fixing it means reducing wealth disparity.
"Fixing" means reducing economic disparity to some reasomable level.
4 replies →