It's less to do with appeal to people on the other side of economic divides, and more to do with the impossibility of selling "the great thing is that it incentivises your next door neighbour to build a high rise" and "sure, your parents will have to downsize because their pension won't cover the tax burden of the house they spent their lifetime saving for, but on the other hand it's great how many investors and companies don't have to pay any tax at all" to the average voter, who cares a lot more about such concrete matters than handwavy claims about efficiency or equity.
> the great thing is that it incentivises your next door neighbour to build a high rise
This is more about NIMBY attitudes and zoning laws, which are separate issues.
> their pension won't cover the tax burden of the house they spent their lifetime saving for
An LVT won't tax the house, only the value of the land. If the plot itself is hyper-valuable, that's not a bad place to be, financially speaking. Beyond that, "won't someone think of the poor landowners?" doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument in this day and age.
> This is more about NIMBY attitudes and zoning laws, which are separate issues.
NIMBY issues and zoning laws are very much not separate issues when one of the chief selling points of LVT is building denser. It's a selling point the public aren't buying because they mostly don't want the value-maximising development next door, and being taxed as if they could develop it whilst still living in a zoned area so they can't is obviously worse. Sure, an LVT can be designed with deductions and exemptions for land use restrictions (and would have to be), but that's conceding away one of its key purported advantages.
> An LVT won't tax the house, only the value of the land. If the plot itself is hyper-valuable, that's not a bad place to be, financially speaking. Beyond that, "won't someone think of the poor landowners?" doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument in this day and age.
"Let's ignore the poor landowners" is a much worse place to be if you're trying to win over the large portion of the electorate which owns some land, which in most cases is probably the second most valuable thing they own after the house they live in (which is separate from the land for tax valuation purposes, but not in the reality that if they can't afford the land it sits on, they're under pressure to sell their home) and not closely coupled to their current income. The general principle of Georgist efficiency is that people on low incomes relative to the value of the land their house are forced to sell and this should drive down land prices for everyone, but the prospect of devaluation or forced sale of very expensive stuff they've already paid for is even less appealing to voters than being taxed on next year's unspent income. (Also, the entities which own the majority of the land turn out to be both less profitable and more relevant to the cost of basic goods like food than the businesses liberated from tax)
Regardless of whether you think these are not insurmountable problems for LVT or not, the thought of being caricatured as the guy who wants the tax system to force people to develop their homes into nice efficient apartment towers or sell in a great hurry to someone with deeper pockets is a much bigger concern for politicians than the thought people with different economic philosophies might actually agree with them for a change.
