In Virginia, a unanimous senate vote puts LVT on the Governors desk. Meanwhile, Kentucky also joins the momentum as other states continue on toward LVT enablement.
There's a reason you will never hear LVT being discussed on mainstream media platforms: it works. It's perhaps the most effective, water-tight kind of tax, since property assets cannot be relocated elsewhere, while its economic impact on possible market destabilisation is among the lowest of any other proportionate tax systems (though anyone who reads this Substack knows this already).
In theory, you could abolish all other forms of business rates, corporation tax, capital gains taxes, VAT, etcetera, and implement an LVT system which dynamically taxes land based on its real economic utility, size of land ownership, and environmental impact. Based on current economic development, farmers would pay virtually nothing compared to how much the state is scraping the barrel of their earnings, while supermarkets would be forced to pay a much fairer amount.
Owners of brownfield sites of untold toxic waste and refuse would be forced to either develop their land into something with economic utility, or sign their land over to a local government administration which could be renovated into a public utility, or converted into a greenfield space (of course, as much as incentivising development is good, I am concerned where development could concentrate in a few post-quarternary economic sectors, where the demand for primary sector services staggers until it's too late; hence why I've expanded my own version of LVT here).
Regardless of what other fiscal policy gets passed as legislation, a reformed LVT would always settle the markets, and allow for a much fairer development of society as the ends of what economics ought to be conceived of for. The reason you won't hear this being discussed by the MSM, least of all because their business model favours outrage, is because it would cause an exodus among their corporate donors.
Fantastic, nice work people!
Wow, so exciting!
There's a reason you will never hear LVT being discussed on mainstream media platforms: it works. It's perhaps the most effective, water-tight kind of tax, since property assets cannot be relocated elsewhere, while its economic impact on possible market destabilisation is among the lowest of any other proportionate tax systems (though anyone who reads this Substack knows this already).
In theory, you could abolish all other forms of business rates, corporation tax, capital gains taxes, VAT, etcetera, and implement an LVT system which dynamically taxes land based on its real economic utility, size of land ownership, and environmental impact. Based on current economic development, farmers would pay virtually nothing compared to how much the state is scraping the barrel of their earnings, while supermarkets would be forced to pay a much fairer amount.
Owners of brownfield sites of untold toxic waste and refuse would be forced to either develop their land into something with economic utility, or sign their land over to a local government administration which could be renovated into a public utility, or converted into a greenfield space (of course, as much as incentivising development is good, I am concerned where development could concentrate in a few post-quarternary economic sectors, where the demand for primary sector services staggers until it's too late; hence why I've expanded my own version of LVT here).
Regardless of what other fiscal policy gets passed as legislation, a reformed LVT would always settle the markets, and allow for a much fairer development of society as the ends of what economics ought to be conceived of for. The reason you won't hear this being discussed by the MSM, least of all because their business model favours outrage, is because it would cause an exodus among their corporate donors.
Hello!
Send lars@landeconomics.org an email, and he should be able to provide one