That's one train of thought, but LVTs are also rarely used. There's a reason for that, too. The view you related may hold where there are caps on rental incre

That's one train of thought, but LVTs are also rarely used. There's a reason for that, too. The view you related may hold where there are caps on rental increases, but why would that hold anywhere else? In other words, what is the mechanism that forces a landlord to absorb the tax increase? If a-particular-piece-of-land is to be transitioned from land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument to land-for-living, then the increase from taxation will already be included in the base rental rate. Unless, the argument is that everyone is poor, so the landowner will not pass the tax onto renters. But, dependence upon large numbers of poor people is an odd way to structure places for renters to live. Continuing with the same economics as what you posted: once some pieces of land are transitioned to land-for-living, then demand will increase for land-the-speculation-and-investment-instrument. Supply and demand isn't static. It fluctuates. If the true goal is to have a place for people to live, then it is far cheaper for people if the government just rezones the area, assuming their employer didn't just lose a building.