Why 98% of economists support a land value tax

Video summary

A land value tax could put idle Toronto lots and LA parking to better use, but Seoul shows it cannot solve housing affordability alone.

The video examines whether land value taxes can ease housing shortages, pointing to LA’s surface parking, Toronto’s vacant lots, Sydney’s second homes, and empty London apartments. It traces the idea to Henry George’s 1879 book Progress and Poverty and explains why economists across the political spectrum support taxing land rather than buildings: land is finite, and taxing it does not discourage construction the way conventional property taxes can. Examples from Cincinnati show parking lots taxed at less than a cent per square foot, compared with about $2 for low-income housing. Despite promising evidence from Denmark, Estonia, and Australia, land taxes remain rare because land values are hard to assess and homeowners may oppose reform. Modern mass-appraisal systems could help, and Cincinnati modeling suggests vacant-lot owners lose while renters and many homeowners benefit. The presenter concludes that the tax can encourage efficient land use but cannot fix affordability alone: Seoul taxes land separately yet still faces a housing crisis, so more homes and looser zoning are also needed.

Chapters

1. 0:00Intro: LA’s downtown land is 23% surface parking, while homes sit empty in London
2. 1:53Georgism: Henry George’s Progress and Poverty inspired a global land-rent movement
3. 5:43Why economists love LVT: Texas parking lots pay under one cent per square foot
4. 12:03Why LVTs are not implemented: Britain’s 1910 valuation fight and homeowner resistance
5. 15:34Why LVT may still work: Denmark’s two-year appraisals, but Seoul shows it is no magic bullet