Taxing land only works if the distribution of land is equitable, except that value-generating uses of land (factories, cities, and farms) aren't distributed uniformly throughout the country.
If you wanted to make that equitable, then you'd need small slices of land to be uniformly distributed to people, but that becomes more or less equivalent to just redistributing equity in companies. And then you'd have to redistribute the equity from time to time, or else you'd need to prevent people from buying and selling equity. Otherwise, the rich will just buy up all the equity again.
No, taxing land would cause redistribution. If you're sitting on land that suddenly costs you money, you will try to sell it. The guy who buys it will be someone with an idea of how to use it to generate enough wealth to pay the tax.
You build the skyscraper and capture the value you add. You made efficient use of land therefore you win. That's the point.
It's about stopping people doing no work and deriving economic value. It's not about stopping economic progress, nor is it about stopping people retaining the value they add. Quite the opposite.
> Taxing land only works if the distribution of land is equitable
Why? I don't see why land value tax cannot exist within the modern world we have of "capitalism" (it's corpratism right now!). Nor do many, many economists.
Never ever heard anyone say this before. The whole point of LVT is to stop unproductive hoarding and to capture the rentier aspect for the common wealth. Have a read up.
If you wanted to make that equitable, then you'd need small slices of land to be uniformly distributed to people, but that becomes more or less equivalent to just redistributing equity in companies. And then you'd have to redistribute the equity from time to time, or else you'd need to prevent people from buying and selling equity. Otherwise, the rich will just buy up all the equity again.