In places it’s not implemented yet it’s because of mostly the work of lobbiests and land owners engagement in politics.
Things and policies in a democracy don’t just catch on, they must be fought over. Thankfully the fight is mostly by political activisn and nothing worse
What do you mean? Where did it not catch on? In Belgium (Flanders) you pay taxes on unused property, whether it is a building or a vacant plot.
It’s a very specific system where government revenue comes from a tax on the value of land (and not even on improvements on that land, so a mansion on land wouldn’t be taxed, for example).
Most countries have some form of property tax. IIRC the UK is the only G7 country that doesn’t, has a mostly-flat-rate council tax, though they do have a transfer tax on sale of real estate. But property tax isn’t a land value tax, and having one doesn’t make a country Georgist.
I’m fairly confident that there are no countries that have gone for deriving their revenue from a land value tax.
The tax that I’m talking about is calculated on the value that has been attributed by the cadastre. You pay it when you own the property without having a building or any other land use on site.
Then, when there is a building on the plot that isn’t being used as intended you get taxed on that. The rate is increased by 100% every year with a maximum of 4 increases resulting in a maximal tax of 500% of the base tax.
This is besides from the standard property tax that makes up an average of 50% of municipalities incomes. There are municipalities in Belgium they get up to 90% of their working funds out of those taxes.
Stupid
SexyTaxy Flanders
Would Hong Kong be considered an example of georgism? All land has a 3% value tax.
There’s a lot more to Georgism than the LVT, and some of it is unpalatable; or at least, antithetical to the American Dream and so essentially a non-starter in the Western Hemisphere.
I would love LVT, myself, and think it’s achievable. The rest of it, no.
We have taxes on land if that’s what you’re referring to
This might not be the reason but in the US a lot of land is privately owned undeveloped land. If you taxed undeveloped land you may incentivize the destruction of habitats of a lot of wildlife.
Surely there could be a conservation exception
I’m not sure what an exception could look like that wouldn’t swallow the rule. Maybe a requirement for a minimum of a certain sq footage of undeveloped land. But that might not work in areas where many lots have a small amount of habitat land that together forms a larger habitat.
I think it might have merit on a municipal level in very urban areas but not on a state or national basis because of this.
Most people don’t like change and don’t understand why it would make any difference.
Describe it to me, maybe it will.
