Seems like that would guarantee that only the most profitable uses of a given property would be contemplated by the owner.

exactly, so those people who own an old empty warehouse, a large basement, or whatever, now have a huge incentive to find uses for them. or they have to sell them which pushes prices down for everything

But what good does it do to push prices down, if even more money has to be paid in taxes for as long as they own the property?

lower value, lower tax. lower value, lower rent.

I'll bite, how would land value tax fix raves not being profitable enough to afford their venues? It seems to me like it make things worse.

The theory is that (a) the tax would be paid by the property owner and not the venue (it is assumed rent follows an econ 102 inelastic supply model) and (b) property would be less attractive as a store of wealth so prices would drop.

Sorry, but a "land value tax" is one of the worst political propositions I've ever heard. This is a great way to further erode the middle class, ensure that owning is always prohibitively out-of-reach for anyone born after 1980, and to promote corporate consolidation of land by BlackRock and other corporations.

I assume the parent comment proposes land value tax as a replacement for existing property tax schemes. In other words, instead of taxing the value of the land + whatever is built on it (current system in most parts of the world), you only tax based on the value of the land, regardless of what is built. Such a system would incentivize using the land as efficiently as possible, as that part is not taxed.

If you have prime real estate in the center of a city but that is undeveloped, currently developing it increases your tax. In a land value tax system, that land would presumably be taxed higher, but tax would not increase if it is developed, therefore incentivizing the owner to actually use it.

So what happens when someone owns land, and then has a bunch of neighborhoods and developments pop up around them? I know a lot of poorer people who bought their home when the area wasn't developed, only for things to spring up around them. That would increase their land value, sure, but also their tax, and I don't think that's fair.

It feels like a way to force these people out of the towns and family homes they've grown up in, in favor of some rich guy or corporation. They can be strong-armed out by increasing their property value around them past a point they can afford the taxes.

Deferred tax payment.

If someone is lucky enough to win the lottery by buying a pot of land for cheap and then seeing its value rise astronomically, they would be given the option to defer their tax payments until the sale of their profit when they realize their gains.

Obviously, there is still a large incentive for them to move sooner rather than later, but they would not be forced out of their home. I think this would be much fairer than the status quo as it would increase the incentive for them to move.

Ultimately, it is not an efficient use of land to have someone keep their single family home in the middle of high-rises like you see in the movie up. We've got a homeless crisis and random parking lots or low density is making it worse. There needs to be a compromise here. Deferred payments lets you balance the scales in a way that would be fair to all.

> ensure that owning is always prohibitively out-of-reach for anyone born after 1980

I would expect a land tax to do the complete opposite and reduce the value of land by half or more, which would do quite bad things to the finances of homeowners, most of whom were born before 2000.