> people get kicked out of their homes once the land value increases too much
This is already possible with property taxes.
FTA the city claims that 97% of homeowners will see a reduction in taxes. Typically, LVT is highest in areas more central to the city (think downtown) and lowers as you move outwards.
This means that, for example, a multitenant strip mall neighboring an Arby’s on a plot of the same size will pay similar amounts of tax. With property tax, the strip mall would be paying significantly more in taxes even though it is a more productive use of land because the development has more value to its owner.
I have the exact same belief about property taxes. I believe they are perverse at the core. If you own something you should not then have to also pay "rent" to avoid having it seized and auctioned off (at a discount, no less) to those who are already more fortunate than you.
This is already possible with property taxes.
FTA the city claims that 97% of homeowners will see a reduction in taxes. Typically, LVT is highest in areas more central to the city (think downtown) and lowers as you move outwards.
This means that, for example, a multitenant strip mall neighboring an Arby’s on a plot of the same size will pay similar amounts of tax. With property tax, the strip mall would be paying significantly more in taxes even though it is a more productive use of land because the development has more value to its owner.