If it was that simple someone would have done it recently.
LVT would cure places like SF where there's huge land values and pent up demand, sure. But it also creates a huge incentive to block development on a town level to keep taxes low.
LVT is economically simple, just politically impossible, especially at a scale that would make a big difference (i.e. replacing income tax with land value tax).
> But it also creates a huge incentive to block development on a town level to keep taxes low.
Wouldn't the town as a government entity be incentivized to foster development to raise tax revenue? The only people who I could see might have an incentive against development is property owners in parcels near the ones being developed, since their land value and therefore taxes will go up; but usually those same people will benefit from the additional economic activity that comes from development, so I'm not convinced.
Yes, LVT needs to implemented along with Japan style national zoning to halt the progress of nimbys. It’s certainly not easy, but that’s because of politics, not the economic reality.
