I think that there's something about LVT, but your dismissal is very shallow and why it's not been implemented so far.

I don't _want_ $1M, I want to live in my house that I bought and lived in for years. Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation.

▲

Gareth321 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think some extra taxes on expensive land is the red line you appear to believe it is. People who own expensive land have many options the rest of the world could only dream of, including reverse mortgages. Meaning no one is actually forcing anyone off their land. They're just being asked to pay some extra taxes. If you believe tax is theft, I can see why this is agitating, but I do not share that view.

	▲	williamdclt 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do not share that "taxation is theft" view either. And I agree that owning expensive land is a privileged position. But the concern of being pushed out of one's home because of an increase in tax is real, "just sell it" is not a viable solution, houses and locations are not fungible. Maybe reverse mortgages are the answer, I'm not sure, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgable about this.

▲

howunfortunate 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Getting money I don't need and having to live in a place I don't want to live in is _not_ a positive situation.

It doesn't need to be.

"No one can ever build any new developments" is also a very negative situation for everyone.*

The goal is to balance these tradeoffs, and it can't just be sunshine and roses for everyone all the time.

*It's also basically our present situation, which is why housing is so absurdly expensive.

▲

rangestransform 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do you believe that you should be allowed to preserve your present lifestyle in amber at a (very minor incremental) cost to economic prosperity for all of society?