That’s one of the ideas of LVT actually: building apartments in land doesn’t increase tax burden, burning the apartments doesn’t lower it

▲

dwheeler 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually think there's a lot of positives in land value taxes. However, I was objecting to the phrase "The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters" because that is missing key issues.

Land's assessed value is based on what you could do with it. If can be rented at a profit, that's something you can do with it, and its potential matters. If it can't, then that is no longer a potential value of it.

That doesn't make lvt a bad idea, it's just that I think there's not enough acknowledgement of the trade-offs and limitations.

▲

aesthesia 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it.

	▲	dwheeler 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Burning down an apartment building doesn't change what could be done with the lot; an appropriate valuation method for LVT would not give a different valuation for the land depending on what is built on it. True, but an LVT is a cost. Changes in cost can change what is financially viable to do with a property, regardless of what is currently done with the lot, and thus can impact the land value.