> > 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.
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!)