The LVT has zero dead-weight losses in a perfect market.
Ben Jamin'
1

> The LVT has zero dead-weight losses in a perfect market.

That’s precisely the problem. It can’t possibly be Pigovian. The only justification for a non-Pigovian tax is that it go against the wealthiest individuals, who are harmed the least by it.

I keep coming back to a dead simple example: Bob selling land to Alice. If the LVT is instituted before the sale, then Bob is the person taxed. If it’s instituted after the sale, then Alice pays the tax. This doesn’t affect any future owners of the land, just the one who happened to be holding the “hot potato” at the time the LVT went into effect. It “feels” precisely like a one-time tax of X$ on the person who happened to be holding the land.

So LVT is effectively identical to an anti-lottery. You’re just picking a random person to take money from. So then just advocate for a random anti-lottery rather than obfuscating the issue.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.