A pure LVT would basically put all low income housing (as older housing) in high value areas out of business very quickly: those properties would have to be redeveloped for higher income purposes way sooner than they would have under a normal property tax scheme. You also have to plan projects not only for current land values, but for land values predicted 20-40 years into the future (and your building isn’t going to depreciate, although that doesn’t happen much in property tax systems either).

▲

novok 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes and no, it also encourages the development of dense housing, which ends up being cheaper housing within a few years vs causing old land inefficient housing to linger too long in a market and cause an affordability crisis. If the value of the land stays flat or goes down after inflation, this effect doesn't happen, it only happens when it goes up, because the economic market induces higher land demand for a region.

"House value always go up" is a relatively recent invention.

It's a tax system to create economic incentives for density.

	▲	seanmcdirmid 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Older housing stock is supposed to be for affordable housing, but if property taxes increase too quickly, they just get replaced with more luxury apartments and condos that still push people out if they are less dense. Worse still, let's say you get to build a massive low income density project, if you make pay LVT...it might not survive. > "House value always go up" is a relatively recent invention. Everyone wanting to live in a few economically hot cities is also a recent invention. If you price the LVT in those cities appropriately, then only the most income generating projects are going to be viable, and that means the lower class is basically not going to be living in those cities anymore.