In NZ we pay property rates based on a combination of land and improvement value. It's been this way for a very long time. Removing the improvement portion and focusing only on the land value portion can only be a simplification - not a complication.
Official estimates of land value are common in many jurisdictions and nothing new.
Wherever Land Value Rating applies it has been adopted by poll of ratepayers, representing a lot of work and profound social concern. Wherever Capital or Annual Value Rating applies it has been imposed by Government or Councils, contrary to the express wishes of the ratepayers in almost every case.15
With certain exceptions16 local LVT, assessed through the LV system, was preferred where democratic choice was allowed, but this choice was removed in1988 by the Labour government, which revoked the democratic polls that had kept the local LVT in place for more than 130 years."
Yes -- taxing on the estimated full value of the property is a very common thing. Almost universally the case in the US as well. And you can use previous sale values and assessments to try to get what seems to be a market valuation.
Two problems though. One is that this is very anti-Georgeist; the main idea with the school of thought is that you should not be penalized for improving the land; you do not want counter-incentives to land improvement, because that's a net negative for neighbors and for society.
The other is that this process is very very very bureaucratic and corruptible. I can see for myself how this manifests in places I've lived because the estimated value for tax purposes is so wildly different than the actual sale price of real estate. I can't speak to NZ specifically as to how much of a problem this is and how it is addressed, but I'm going to go out on a limb and offer the hypothesis that it is poorly addressed and there is a big divergence between the estimates and the sale prices for real estate. Prove me wrong!
In NZ we pay property rates based on a combination of land and improvement value. It's been this way for a very long time. Removing the improvement portion and focusing only on the land value portion can only be a simplification - not a complication.
Official estimates of land value are common in many jurisdictions and nothing new.