On: Does Georgism work? Five years later

[intrasight]

> I think LVT does have a history in US, e.g Pittsburgh

Yeah, I looked at the map in the article and thought, wait a minute, why is Pennsylvania not colorcoded if Pittsburgh has a land value tax? So the map is only showing states that do? I didnt know there were any states that tax land. But do remember being confused when I moved to Pittsburgh by there being two separate taxes - for land and for property.

I also think that the pittsburgh example shows that LVT is meaningless. All homeowners care about here is their total real estate tax. How it is split between land and property nobody pays attention to.

[margalabargala → intrasight]

> All homeowners care about here is their total real estate tax. How it is split between land and property nobody pays attention to.

Right, because there's already a home on the property.

Anyone who owns a parking lot or vacant lot, will care very much about the split.

[intrasight → margalabargala]

Then it's just an argument about raising taxes, which any municipality could choose to do, rather than a question of land value tax.

Georgeism is just silly from economics standpoint

[margalabargala → intrasight]

I think you misunderstand. Having separate land and property taxes allows the city a lever to discourage vacant lots.

[intrasight → margalabargala]

Vacant land has just one tax - which they can raise.

[margalabargala → intrasight]

Right exactly. And by raising land tax and lowering (ha) or keeping constant property tax they discourage vacant lots without punishing homeowners even more, which is what happens everywhere else.