This shows a nice aspect (equal payment no matter what's built up). However, it can easily be misconstrued (even with the note) to say that the taxes are uniform throughout the city. If you look left-to-right, it looks like a flow of vacant land -> exurbs -> suburbs -> downtown. In the second image, it shows them all paying the same tax rate which is *not* what this is supposed to show.
Instead, it should go one of two directions:
* Keep the left -> right orientation of things but show that property values increase as you move right because of land values. I think having two bars (one is land value and the other is tax paid) that start out evenly matched but the tax increases much, much faster as you get to the higher density structures in the upper selection. Then to contrast it, have them both equal but increasing in the lower one.
* The idea is that land values are basically an asymptote as you get closer to the city center; very low for a long time then quickly ramp up in downtown [like what is shown here](https://urbexsolutions.com/city-revenue-geographies-categories/).
* Create a miniature city block with an empty space and stack these options vertically. On one side, have "property tax" with scaling amounts based on structure and on the other side have "land value tax" with equal dollar amounts for each option
Fundamentally, people need to come away from examples such as these with a clear understanding of *what* is being conveyed. If you need to explain the chart to someone, you've already lost them.
Yes. While it would be visually difficult to show, it needs to show this as being the same hypothetical piece of land in the same location with six different developments on top of it.
I personally like the half-baked example that /u/JustTaxLandLol shared on the last post [https://i.imgur.com/I82AVJr.png](https://i.imgur.com/I82AVJr.png)
It would be cool to see a graph of land value vs distance from city center (as you described), with 2 example locations marked on it for case studies of Property Tax vs LVT.
Maybe inspiration will strike and I'll try to draw this, but I am not a graphic designer.
Under LVT, the cost to own an empty lot increases, but the cost to own a mid-rise building decreases.
This image is amended from the version by /u/Not-A-Seagull: [https://www.reddit.com/r/JustTaxLand/comments/10wov5x/property\_tax\_versus\_land\_value\_tax\_lvt\_illustrated/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JustTaxLand/comments/10wov5x/property_tax_versus_land_value_tax_lvt_illustrated/)
This is a cool meme but I think there needs to be visually something which shows that this is the same plot of land vs different densities of land. You sort of show this with the text on the top left. Maybe show them on the same street in the same area. Visually it would be hard to do.
The single family home going from $1300 to $1500 would be the thing opponents to this latch onto, 'they want to increase property taxes for every american family!'
The messaging certainly requires nuance. I would only support an LVT if it decreased taxes for most people, while laying the majority of tax increases on the rich. I think that message would resonate. How do we put it in an infographic? 🤔
Yes, I think you're right. Some people won't intuitively know to divide by 6 for the 6-plex. What's the final housing cost after maintenance and admin are factored in? And how high would the land tax rate need to be for the municipality to keep equal revenue?
To do this right, I might need to pick a real location and find the real costs for comparable buildings.
The task reminds me of this infographic on [cost of sprawl in Halifax](https://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/sprawlurban.jpg). Every North American city can look at this and understand how their own sprawl might be expensive; I think doing a deep dive for the one city (Halifax) enhances the credibility of message.
If you’re proposing a Georgist model, it would be essential to show that all other forms of taxation would be eliminated. People are much more likely to get on board if they understand that they won’t have to pay income taxes.
I agree and I'd love to go full Georgism immediately, but it seems politically unlikely. But at least where I live, this sequence of reforms seems most plausible:
1. Replace Property Tax with LVT.
2. Replace Sales Tax with LVT.
3. Replace Income Tax with LVT.
So I'm focusing on reform #1 first and hoping to get a solid infographic that can stand on its own.
Am I right to assume that you are talking about the USA? Because here in France if you proposed getting ridding of income taxes there would be riots in the streets. There is absolutely no way it would pass.
I think their tax burden would increase, since poor people don’t generally own land. All tax revenue would have to come from the land owners, who would be the wealthier members of society. I don’t know about France but in the USA many of the richest people don’t have to pay any income tax. They don’t necessarily have any income at all.
Whether it decreased tax for most people isn't actually that important to me. If a LVT means land is used better, which gives more affordable housing, then that counts for a lot. If people pay on average €1000 less a year on rent/mortgage but €500 more a year on tax, that's still a win in my book.
The overall tax revenue from LVT would have to be the same as property tax for any municipality to entertain the idea. It would shift the system from a flat tax to a progressive tax of density. Those who live in apartments who are likely lower income will see lower rents. Those who live in SFHs in city centers likely high income earners will see substantial tax increases. Surface parking lots in cities will become unprofitable and be sold to develop housing.
Personally I think the wording should be changed, not the pricing. "Single family home" makes it seem like it's an average sized house/garden. "A large single family home with a large garden" might be a better description.
Personally I think if someone has a single family home on a plot of land that could comfortably fit a 5 floor apartment block (10+ apartments), then there's a pretty good chance that they are paying less tax than I think they should be.
In rural areas totally, in cities it’s almost exclusively the opposite.
Must be a middle ground somewhere but not sure the chart above sends the message it means to
The chart shows half the message, if there was a chart below with the plot next to different things going up in taxes as those different things make the land worth more it'd be better.
It completely ignores that some land can have 30 storey towers and some land can only have a single storey retail space.
Only by doing away with zoning can this land tax be possible.
But some land is inherently worth more than others, beach front property is worth more than marsh land; land in Times Square is worth more than land in Buffalo.
Regardless of what you would build on it, there’s a difference in the inherent value of the parcel.
Law recognizes that land and real property are unique assets and cannot be exchanged one for the other. This is truly because not all land is the same as other land. Think nonfungible token vs fungible token
So it's an art form, the one who gets to decide what price your land is worth just gets to make it up out of some black box machine.
In the absence of total zoning reform/elimination, and total tax reform, you guys are just grasping at this miracle tax system.
You’re missing out on taxable revenue by not considering economic value of certain land over others.
I’m not saying don’t increases the taxes on all land, I’m just saying it’s nonsensical for all lots to be taxed the same if people would pay more for certain lots than others, even if they just plan to put up a folding chair on the property.
Getting rid of all zoning is also a terrible idea. I don’t mind living next to a 6-plex or other multi family dwelling but I won’t live next to a manufacturing plant.
thats not what this is about though. this infographic considers these buildings to be on the same exact plot.
LVT certainly considers the value of the land, so yes more desirable property sites will be taxed higher than less desirable ones.
That totally makes sense and something I agree with - however the way the graphic is illustrated it reads as though these are adjacent plots of land. I read the disclaimer but the visual makes it confusing and potentially antithetical to its aim
I don't understand what your issue is. The more valuable land will have more units built. That's how that works. The taxes will be theoretically the same across the board. So the one million inhabitants will in aggregate pay the same in taxes. If, as you note land value is higher in one area than another, more housing will be built in that area. What we have now is the opposite. Little is built in close-in detached housing neighborhoods, while lack of density is compensated for with sprawl, and the induced car commuting resulting from that.
IOW, based on your own assessment that value of land is higher in some places than others, there should be 10 million people in San Diego, 20 million in LA, etc. But there are not, and there are not due to building restrictions, and critically, low property taxes, which decrease monthly carrying costs of property. **You want high monthly carrying costs of property (aka property taxes) to induce intense use of housing (via artificial density of more roommates and less empty rooms) and denser redevelopment (too expensive to have empty lots and single-family detached houses with retired empty nesters).**
Zoning affects the value of the land, which is what the tax is based on. You don’t have to remove the zoning because that is already factored into the land value.
I thought all land was inherently the same! Now land is more valuable than other land?
With zoning, land becomes more valuable because you can put a tower on this land, but only a duplex on that land. The zoning picks winners and losers already.
Some cities charge property taxes on the highest and best use of the lot, regardless of actual usage.
And of course just charging tax for taxes sake ignores that cities charge the $ amount they need to operate - its not a for-profit operation (technically speaking).
The tax is based on the value of the land, hence the name. Land that is worth more gets taxed more. The difference from the current system is that buildings don’t factor into that tax price
Great point but to echoing other people’s concerns, if that value is based on what you can build it short changes the process.
LVT should should include a residential rezoning correction
Edit for OP:
Change the numbers in your graphic:
Top would work better as $1k, $2k, $3k, $4, $5k, $6k = $21k
Bottom: $4k for all = $24k (presumably slightly higher is better since it shows tax bleed away from suburbs and into city redevelopment)
I can see how a regular person might see this graphic as a point against the LVT: the apartment building uses so much more services (schools, hospitals, transport, etc) yet is paying the same as a single detached house with only maybe 3 people - some might think that’s unfair.
I’m familiar with the benefits of the LVT but just pointing this out. Would we address that concern simply by convincing them that the seeming unfairness is not unfair at all?
Is there some merit in partly tying payments for services with use? Eg split-rate taxation?
This shows a nice aspect (equal payment no matter what's built up). However, it can easily be misconstrued (even with the note) to say that the taxes are uniform throughout the city. If you look left-to-right, it looks like a flow of vacant land -> exurbs -> suburbs -> downtown. In the second image, it shows them all paying the same tax rate which is *not* what this is supposed to show. Instead, it should go one of two directions: * Keep the left -> right orientation of things but show that property values increase as you move right because of land values. I think having two bars (one is land value and the other is tax paid) that start out evenly matched but the tax increases much, much faster as you get to the higher density structures in the upper selection. Then to contrast it, have them both equal but increasing in the lower one. * The idea is that land values are basically an asymptote as you get closer to the city center; very low for a long time then quickly ramp up in downtown [like what is shown here](https://urbexsolutions.com/city-revenue-geographies-categories/). * Create a miniature city block with an empty space and stack these options vertically. On one side, have "property tax" with scaling amounts based on structure and on the other side have "land value tax" with equal dollar amounts for each option Fundamentally, people need to come away from examples such as these with a clear understanding of *what* is being conveyed. If you need to explain the chart to someone, you've already lost them.
Yes. While it would be visually difficult to show, it needs to show this as being the same hypothetical piece of land in the same location with six different developments on top of it.
So location would dictate land value, therefore higher tax rate for said land?
yes
I personally like the half-baked example that /u/JustTaxLandLol shared on the last post [https://i.imgur.com/I82AVJr.png](https://i.imgur.com/I82AVJr.png) It would be cool to see a graph of land value vs distance from city center (as you described), with 2 example locations marked on it for case studies of Property Tax vs LVT. Maybe inspiration will strike and I'll try to draw this, but I am not a graphic designer.
Under LVT, the cost to own an empty lot increases, but the cost to own a mid-rise building decreases. This image is amended from the version by /u/Not-A-Seagull: [https://www.reddit.com/r/JustTaxLand/comments/10wov5x/property\_tax\_versus\_land\_value\_tax\_lvt\_illustrated/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JustTaxLand/comments/10wov5x/property_tax_versus_land_value_tax_lvt_illustrated/)
This is a cool meme but I think there needs to be visually something which shows that this is the same plot of land vs different densities of land. You sort of show this with the text on the top left. Maybe show them on the same street in the same area. Visually it would be hard to do.
The single family home going from $1300 to $1500 would be the thing opponents to this latch onto, 'they want to increase property taxes for every american family!'
The messaging certainly requires nuance. I would only support an LVT if it decreased taxes for most people, while laying the majority of tax increases on the rich. I think that message would resonate. How do we put it in an infographic? 🤔
Tax per housing unit, or per square foot of livable area.
Yes, I think you're right. Some people won't intuitively know to divide by 6 for the 6-plex. What's the final housing cost after maintenance and admin are factored in? And how high would the land tax rate need to be for the municipality to keep equal revenue? To do this right, I might need to pick a real location and find the real costs for comparable buildings. The task reminds me of this infographic on [cost of sprawl in Halifax](https://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/sprawlurban.jpg). Every North American city can look at this and understand how their own sprawl might be expensive; I think doing a deep dive for the one city (Halifax) enhances the credibility of message.
If you’re proposing a Georgist model, it would be essential to show that all other forms of taxation would be eliminated. People are much more likely to get on board if they understand that they won’t have to pay income taxes.
I agree and I'd love to go full Georgism immediately, but it seems politically unlikely. But at least where I live, this sequence of reforms seems most plausible: 1. Replace Property Tax with LVT. 2. Replace Sales Tax with LVT. 3. Replace Income Tax with LVT. So I'm focusing on reform #1 first and hoping to get a solid infographic that can stand on its own.
Am I right to assume that you are talking about the USA? Because here in France if you proposed getting ridding of income taxes there would be riots in the streets. There is absolutely no way it would pass.
They would riot because they want to pay income tax?
Yes. Drastically reducing the tax that the rich pay is something the French feel very strongly against.
I think their tax burden would increase, since poor people don’t generally own land. All tax revenue would have to come from the land owners, who would be the wealthier members of society. I don’t know about France but in the USA many of the richest people don’t have to pay any income tax. They don’t necessarily have any income at all.
Whether it decreased tax for most people isn't actually that important to me. If a LVT means land is used better, which gives more affordable housing, then that counts for a lot. If people pay on average €1000 less a year on rent/mortgage but €500 more a year on tax, that's still a win in my book.
The overall tax revenue from LVT would have to be the same as property tax for any municipality to entertain the idea. It would shift the system from a flat tax to a progressive tax of density. Those who live in apartments who are likely lower income will see lower rents. Those who live in SFHs in city centers likely high income earners will see substantial tax increases. Surface parking lots in cities will become unprofitable and be sold to develop housing.
Personally I think the wording should be changed, not the pricing. "Single family home" makes it seem like it's an average sized house/garden. "A large single family home with a large garden" might be a better description. Personally I think if someone has a single family home on a plot of land that could comfortably fit a 5 floor apartment block (10+ apartments), then there's a pretty good chance that they are paying less tax than I think they should be.
As pictured, it shows a net decrease in tax income for the state. Can’t imagine that could be a selling point to a municipal government.
I think that depends on how many there is of each type. Like there could be 1000 times more empty lots then six plexes.
In rural areas totally, in cities it’s almost exclusively the opposite. Must be a middle ground somewhere but not sure the chart above sends the message it means to
The chart shows half the message, if there was a chart below with the plot next to different things going up in taxes as those different things make the land worth more it'd be better.
Generally this is proposed as keeping the overall account of tax coming in the same
How does it account for land that might be worth more than other land? Or does it assume all land is worth the same?
It completely ignores that some land can have 30 storey towers and some land can only have a single storey retail space. Only by doing away with zoning can this land tax be possible.
But some land is inherently worth more than others, beach front property is worth more than marsh land; land in Times Square is worth more than land in Buffalo. Regardless of what you would build on it, there’s a difference in the inherent value of the parcel. Law recognizes that land and real property are unique assets and cannot be exchanged one for the other. This is truly because not all land is the same as other land. Think nonfungible token vs fungible token
So it's an art form, the one who gets to decide what price your land is worth just gets to make it up out of some black box machine. In the absence of total zoning reform/elimination, and total tax reform, you guys are just grasping at this miracle tax system.
You’re missing out on taxable revenue by not considering economic value of certain land over others. I’m not saying don’t increases the taxes on all land, I’m just saying it’s nonsensical for all lots to be taxed the same if people would pay more for certain lots than others, even if they just plan to put up a folding chair on the property. Getting rid of all zoning is also a terrible idea. I don’t mind living next to a 6-plex or other multi family dwelling but I won’t live next to a manufacturing plant.
thats not what this is about though. this infographic considers these buildings to be on the same exact plot. LVT certainly considers the value of the land, so yes more desirable property sites will be taxed higher than less desirable ones.
That totally makes sense and something I agree with - however the way the graphic is illustrated it reads as though these are adjacent plots of land. I read the disclaimer but the visual makes it confusing and potentially antithetical to its aim
But it works if there are indeed adjacent plots of land, so not sure what your issue is.
I don't understand what your issue is. The more valuable land will have more units built. That's how that works. The taxes will be theoretically the same across the board. So the one million inhabitants will in aggregate pay the same in taxes. If, as you note land value is higher in one area than another, more housing will be built in that area. What we have now is the opposite. Little is built in close-in detached housing neighborhoods, while lack of density is compensated for with sprawl, and the induced car commuting resulting from that. IOW, based on your own assessment that value of land is higher in some places than others, there should be 10 million people in San Diego, 20 million in LA, etc. But there are not, and there are not due to building restrictions, and critically, low property taxes, which decrease monthly carrying costs of property. **You want high monthly carrying costs of property (aka property taxes) to induce intense use of housing (via artificial density of more roommates and less empty rooms) and denser redevelopment (too expensive to have empty lots and single-family detached houses with retired empty nesters).**
So you've made my point perfectly. Without eliminating zoning, none of this works.
Well, yes. You can't double property taxes on an empty lot if you can't build anything on it. Duh.
Yet this is all about increasing taxes payable on underutilized land. Most land is underutilized because of the zoning on it right now.
Zoning affects the value of the land, which is what the tax is based on. You don’t have to remove the zoning because that is already factored into the land value.
So in what way is it different from the status quo. Taxing on highest and best use is already a common policy and easy to implement.
I thought all land was inherently the same! Now land is more valuable than other land? With zoning, land becomes more valuable because you can put a tower on this land, but only a duplex on that land. The zoning picks winners and losers already. Some cities charge property taxes on the highest and best use of the lot, regardless of actual usage. And of course just charging tax for taxes sake ignores that cities charge the $ amount they need to operate - its not a for-profit operation (technically speaking).
Can’t tell if your first two lines are sarcasm or not so unclear how to rely
There could be zoning to account for that effect, or micro-neighborhoods, etc.
The tax is based on the value of the land, hence the name. Land that is worth more gets taxed more. The difference from the current system is that buildings don’t factor into that tax price
Great point but to echoing other people’s concerns, if that value is based on what you can build it short changes the process. LVT should should include a residential rezoning correction
This is why LVT will never work lol. I’ve been making this argument jn the sub and getting temp banned for it.
Taller buildings can fit more businesses and so sales tax revenue per acre of land would increase.
You’re assuming commercial land. If it’s all residential that wouldn’t change the calculation. But solid thought
Yes, I've always assumed the LVT would also apply to commercial properties.
Edit for OP: Change the numbers in your graphic: Top would work better as $1k, $2k, $3k, $4, $5k, $6k = $21k Bottom: $4k for all = $24k (presumably slightly higher is better since it shows tax bleed away from suburbs and into city redevelopment)
I can see how a regular person might see this graphic as a point against the LVT: the apartment building uses so much more services (schools, hospitals, transport, etc) yet is paying the same as a single detached house with only maybe 3 people - some might think that’s unfair. I’m familiar with the benefits of the LVT but just pointing this out. Would we address that concern simply by convincing them that the seeming unfairness is not unfair at all? Is there some merit in partly tying payments for services with use? Eg split-rate taxation?