That's the idea, though. If you're sitting on an undeveloped or underdeveloped parcel of land, you should bear the cost of the value of the land. If it's in a rural area, you can probably weather the tax burden because it's worth a lot less than a surface parking lot in an urban area.
The idea behind such taxation is to destroy the deadweight losses created by land speculators. You either buy the land, develop it, and bear the weight of the tax on the fair assessment of the land's value, or you don't buy the land at all.
Property tax is predicated on the value of the structure now. Land-value taxes are predicated on the value of the land, developed or not. That will fluctuate based on the desirability of the surrounding area.
The irony is that property taxes are predicated on the value of the structure, but the practicalities of market forces are that the land is what's actually valuable. So rather than keep playing this mis-labeled game, we should embrace land-value taxes and have municipalities asses taxes without regard to the structure, just the potential economic value of the land.
One could say Property taxes are like wealth taxes. You are taxing unrealized gains. But IMO it's once of the best ways cities meet their expenses and everyone pays their fair share. It keeps property prices somewhat in check because it costs money speculate.
Land that can be developed into residential lots should be appraised at a higher value. There should be a 2-4 year period where a land owner has their opportunity to develop land, but then it should be taxed at rate of nearby developed lots.
Land ownership is almost a zero-sum game and should be well regulated for efficient demand and supply. Rent-seekers don't add any value, just suck it up into their fat pockets.
And that's a good thing, because unlike other valuables, you can't just create or mine more land. Land is inherently valuable based on its location, you can't just get more of it somewhere and import it in.
There needs to be pressure to actually make productive use of land so that people don't just uselessly sit on it.
Yes, it’s called property tax, calculated by multiplying a property tax rate times assessed value of the property. Does anywhere not already have that?
A property tax is typically assessed on the value of land + property, and honestly, we don't do a good job of accurately pricing the land value aspect of it. So if you don't build anything and just own the land, your property tax will be very low.
theoreticalmal's comment seems to imply that taxes on unrealized gains are not a thing, to which I was replying that property taxes are an example of a tax on unrealized gains. Everyone whose home has gone up in market value knows this because their property tax has surely increased over the years even though they haven't sold their home.
Land Value Tax (the Georgeism discussed in the article) just taxes the land on what it is worth, not the buildings on it. So holding land vacant costs more because the speculator is not making any money from it, while they could be making money from a building.
A side benefit for homeowners is that improvements increase equity and resale value without raising taxes
In CA there was/is a ban on SFH zoning. So at least in that case every homeowner should get taxed like at least a fourplex. Considering your wage didn’t increase that means less money for mortgage, etc., so buyers have less to spend on a house and your property goes down in value.
