Carbon tax will make it more expensive to do anything that consumes energy, which is every human activity.
Land value tax: you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why?
Tax on personal vehicles: it was EPA mandates that led to the current huge truck situation in the US, so maybe remove those instead of forcing people to pay even more for worse vehicles.
A lot of human activities don't use that much energy in the grand scheme of things. Playing board games, walking around a neighborhood, going to concerts or shows at the theater, these are all things that use very little energy when compared to heavy manufacturing, transportation, and most agriculture. Since most humans will bear the costs of climate change as it begins to destroy our past investments, I think it's fairly reasonable to fix that damage based on how much carbon activities generate.
> now you have to pay more tax
I mean I buy a cheap stock and it's value goes up, why should I have to pay tax on that too!? The value of the land has gone up because it has more amenities and benefits as well. If you feel you are not benefiting from the increased investment around your land, then you should sell it so it can be put to better use.
> it was EPA mandates
Correction: it was the exemptions from EPA mandates that created the huge truck situation. The fix would be to remove the exemptions for "light trucks"
> you should sell it so it can be put to better use.
This is the key point! There is an opportunity cost for society from every piece of land we cannot use for something new. That's reflected by the value of the land. If the value to the owner is much lower than the value to someone else, we aren't using the land efficiently.
It's also unearned income. It's ideal to tax unearned income because you don't create negative incentive for desired activities. It's in essence a tax that comes at no cost to society.
Carbon tax will force people to confront the true costs of the things they do. It should be implemented with a dividend so only people who pollute more than average end up losing money.
The idea behind LVT is basically that the most morally acceptable way for the government to raise money is by owning all of society's land and renting it out at full value to citizens. There are many reasons for this, can be read here https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... but the answer to your question is "because the land belongs to the people and you're just renting it from them, so you have to pay more as the value increases"
On the land value tax, you have to pay more tax specifically because its value increases. If you want to cash out, then sell the property for it's now much higher value. The value didn't increase because something you did personally, rather because the whole area became more popular due to you and your neighbours (or more usually, your tenants) moving in and being productive. It seems fair that this value that everybody added to your property would get distributed to everybody instead of just you, the owner.
Everyone who helped raise the value deserves a cut; that’s a good point.
That does not, however, seem to be a real justification for giving a check to a person a few towns away who does not own any property and who didn’t improve our neighborhood. What’s the justification in your model for giving him a cut?
There is an opportunity cost for society from every piece of land we cannot use for something new. That's reflected by the value of the land. If the value to the owner is much lower than the value to someone else, we aren't using the land efficiently.
It's also unearned income. It's ideal to tax unearned income because you don't create negative incentive for desired activities. It's in essence a tax that comes at no cost to society.
You are right, to some degree this would be taxing unrealized gains which IMO is generally bad. The important part though is that it's taxing a negative externality (the opportunity cost for society).
And once you cash out, you'll have to pay taxes on the profit you make. A land value tax would make live harder for the people living in their homes, as their CoL increased without them having any new income, while landlords would just increase rent accordingly (and could easily do so, as everyone would increase rent).
The solution to all such complaints about property taxes is to have very little tax for people's primary residence, and apply high taxes for all other properties they own.
This also has the effect that being a landlord is disincentivized, and property prices have a downward pressure which allows more people to become home owners.
> have very little tax for people's primary residence
Homeowners already get crazy tax breaks that our society bears the cost of. This would just be an even bigger shift to funding government services on the backs of renters rather than homeowners, as any increase in taxes that "landlords" are assessed is passed on to renters.
> you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why?
This is already true for most implementations of property tax (at least in the US). You get reassessed and then pay tax based on the new value.
The group that has tried hardest to mitigate probably is California with prop 13, and even that can only limit property tax increases to 2% per year. When we study that we see that it can always happen just because inflation is a background force in play. And then also, look at all the wonky side effects that take place when you try to prevent this from happening.
Land value tax: you move to a cheap place, some time later its value increases and now you have to pay more tax, why?
Tax on personal vehicles: it was EPA mandates that led to the current huge truck situation in the US, so maybe remove those instead of forcing people to pay even more for worse vehicles.