• ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So it disincentivizes living in an urban setting an penalized fixed income people already in those homes?

    • w2qw@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not necessarily the first as long as it’s done in land efficient way and the second if they are unwilling to move but otherwise yes.

      • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh boy! I guess I see why people are against it. Probably should come up with a better plan.

        • w2qw@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah you aren’t wrong there. Figuring our a way to placated those groups is required to get it to be implemented.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The people who will be impacted first will be people who own vacant lots and parking lots in and around downtowns. If you’re concerned about people getting booted out of their homes, consider Estonia:

      Estonia levies an LVT to fund municipalities. It is a state level tax, but 100% of the revenue funds Local Councils. The rate is set by the Local Council within the limits of 0.1–2.5%. It is one of the most important sources of funding for municipalities.[90] LVT is levied on the value of the land only. Few exemptions are available and even public institutions are subject to it. Church sites are exempt, but other land held by religious institutions is not.[90] The tax has contributed to a high rate (~90%)[90] of owner-occupied residences within Estonia, compared to a rate of 67.4% in the United States.[91]

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

      In general, LVT should increase overall housing supply, improve affordability, and can be used to reduce other taxes such as property, income, and sales taxes. Most serious proposals I have seen have been to replace property taxes with LVT. These factors should make it easier on average households generally, and also allow them more flexibility to downsize (once your kids have moved out, do you really need a jumbo house all to yourself?), rather than locking you into the only place you can afford.

      • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was one concern. Another is our specific situation. Our foundation square footage is 972, our lot is 3,991 in total, none of it yard, half is all wild growth and weed trees, the rest is clover we planted to replace the grass and support pollinators. Our property tax is $3,750 this year, our land value is $46,400. I understand the calculation would be different on LVT but if I’d end up paying more on an LVT scheme then I wouldn’t want to have it in place.

        I’d be more in favor if the county determined it’s annual budget costs and then divided that by the total acreage of privately owned land and you paid the percentage equal to your total land value.

        I may be misunderstanding but it reads like .09 acres I have may be assessed as more valuable because of where it is than .09 acres 20 miles away in Tre same state and county.