Item — HN Reader

There's a small note referring to Denmark applying an LVT that is "close to theory", and further down a comment that it comprises roughly 2% of total government revenue.

On the linked article, the tax seems to be .5% up to a given value, then 1.5% above that (fairly hefty, imo), but excludes rented properties - which pay tax on the rent.

This danish case study seems to me a better case study for the LVT: why does it raise so little?

2 comments

2% sounds small but it isn't over time. Compare to our own investments where we really care about 1% (or commercial investments/funds where 0.1% matters)

Paul Graham writes about the illusion here: https://paulgraham.com/wtax.html (wealth taxes and land taxes have close similarities). Maybe needs more attention to inflation or capital gains. Discuss here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43357851

The argument about empty land remaining undeveloped seems rather vacuous when you think that empty land already has a holding cost [either (1) mortgage interest or (2) opportunity cost ≈investment_market_beta]. And city property taxes in New Zealand are low percent already.

Land ownership is zero sum so that makes it wildly different from equity (although many people think of capital as zero sum too).

Putting tax down always seems to be more popular than putting it up. I think this is a prime tax for putting down as everybody pays it, so there's a case to be made, and rich people will pay a lot so they have the money to make that case.

> Putting tax always seems to be more popular

I think you typo'd there, with initial 'P' intended to be 'C'