He didn't say tax housing, he said tax land. Specifically non-agricultural land that has no homestead. That is a double edged sword though (at least in the US

He didn't say tax housing, he said tax land. Specifically non-agricultural land that has no homestead. That is a double edged sword though (at least in the US). If we continue to try to divest of public lands (thank you republicans) but then tax private lands, what happens to conservation efforts? You'd at the very least need to enact something that has an exception for land conservation, but good luck keeping out the loopholes. Minimum of 100 years before the land can be built on? And then an egregiously high tax at the end if it is to be built on?