undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjjav5mo ago0 comments

I am responding to the comment I quoted, namely: "parking lots, and self storage facilities would be penalized because they wouldn't generate enough income to cover taxes on land".

So if a LVT has the explicit goal of eliminating things like parking lots and self storage units because those don't generate enough income to pay for the taxes, then what hope do things like playgrounds and parks have to continue existing.. they generate far less income than a self storage facility.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

estearum5mo ago· 2 in thread

And they just answered: they generate huge amounts of income for the entity that actually pays for playgrounds and parks (the city).

jjavOP5mo ago

That feels like wishfull thinking. What I see around me in practice is government doing all they can to sell off public lots (like parks) to developers to tear down the park and build another luxury condo. More tax revenue, more money in the government pocket, some bribes under the table, another loss of quality of life in the neighborhood.

estearum5mo ago

Right, because selling it is a better revenue opportunity. Under the tax scheme described, the reverse is true.

1 more reply

kiba5mo ago

Parks and playgrounds increase the land value of the surrounding community. That results in higher LVT.

That creates a virtuous cycle for the local government who is administering those taxpayer paid amenities, same as other form of infrastructure and amenities.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse