The rate was, of course, fictitious. Feel free to use a different estimate.
> Unimproved land will be less, of course.
Unimproved land would be more since a higher tax rate is needed to bring in the same tax revenues if you exclude the value of the improvements.
> Secondly, would "Big Ag" really offer 20x the intrinsic value of the property?
To eliminate a competitor? I don't find that implausible at all. They wouldn't pay that much for an arbitrary plot of land, but it's not the land that they're paying for here.
> Thirdly, who wouldn't be dancing for joy to receive 19x the value of their property in cash…?
Presumably the owner who didn't want to sell the land at the ordinary market value in the first place. Maybe it's been in their family for generations, or they just really despise Big Ag and don't want them to get it. Maybe cash just isn't all that valuable to them.
> …then yes, LVT is a pressure to sell. That's (part of) the point of LVT.
And that is part of what is wrong with LVT. Property owners have the right to keep their property no matter who wants it or how much they are willing to offer. Regardless of the reason.
> > Firstly, the tax will be nowhere near 10% p.a..
> The rate was, of course, fictitious. Feel free to use a different estimate.
The scenario fails with a different estimate. If one chooses 1% p.a. then it's even less plausible that "Big Ag" is going to offer 200x the value of the property!
> > Unimproved land will be less, of course.
> Unimproved land would be more since a higher tax rate is needed to bring in the same tax revenues if you exclude the value of the improvements.
Interesting. I hadn't considered that. I'm hard for me to understand the implications. Anyway, you seem to be suggesting 10% of the total property value (including improvements), which is far higher than would occur in practice.
> Property owners have the right to keep their property no matter who wants it or how much they are willing to offer. Regardless of the reason.
Right, so I think your objection is to LVT at all, not this particular strategy of countering under- and overvaluation. That's a reasonable position. I don't agree, but I'm sympathetic. Your particular objection about "Big Ag" buying the family farm seems a too precise and implausible objection to the very vague system I laid out.
(Or intended to lay out. If readers misinterpreted my comment then I take full responsibility and apologise!)
The rate was, of course, fictitious. Feel free to use a different estimate.
> Unimproved land will be less, of course.
Unimproved land would be more since a higher tax rate is needed to bring in the same tax revenues if you exclude the value of the improvements.
> Secondly, would "Big Ag" really offer 20x the intrinsic value of the property?
To eliminate a competitor? I don't find that implausible at all. They wouldn't pay that much for an arbitrary plot of land, but it's not the land that they're paying for here.
> Thirdly, who wouldn't be dancing for joy to receive 19x the value of their property in cash…?
Presumably the owner who didn't want to sell the land at the ordinary market value in the first place. Maybe it's been in their family for generations, or they just really despise Big Ag and don't want them to get it. Maybe cash just isn't all that valuable to them.
> …then yes, LVT is a pressure to sell. That's (part of) the point of LVT.
And that is part of what is wrong with LVT. Property owners have the right to keep their property no matter who wants it or how much they are willing to offer. Regardless of the reason.