> One way out could be to tax the value gain at the time of sale

Stamp duty in the UK, horrendous tax. It's better than nothing at offsetting the unearned increase in house (land) value, but far worse than a regular tax.

If you live somewhere for 10 years, then move, then repeat for 40 years, you pay far more than if you never move. This encourages people to live in less suitable houses for longer.

As to your worry about land values increasing -- the owner is deriving benefit. The higher the land value is, the more benefit the owner gets from the land.

▲

dpark 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you live somewhere for 10 years, then move, then repeat for 40 years, you pay far more than if you never move.

This sounds like a problem with the way the particular tax is written, not with the idea of taxing housing gains at the time of sale.

> The higher the land value is, the more benefit the owner gets from the land.

What benefit does a homeowner derive from increased land value before selling?

▲

iso1631 an hour ago | parent [-]

The increased land value is because the land is more desirable. If I buy some land next to a rubbish dump, it's cheap because living there is terrible. If the dump is then closed my land improves in value, and I derive value from that.

Likewise if I buy somewhere cheap in a backwater town, and the town becomes more desirable because there are better employment opportunities, better shops, better amenities, all of which serve to mean people will pay more for the land, then I benefit from that immediately.

	▲	brabel 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The value is subjective, if you lived in a quaint town and now it’s become a bustling place it may be a nightmare for you , despite the price increases. That is actually a win win situation, though, since you can now move to another quaint town elsewhere while taking a pile of cash with you, with the perhaps important caveat that you do lose your proximity to places and people you may consider more important than the money.