I think the differences are that 1) Equipment can be produced competitively, driving down the profit on an equipment rental business, whereas in certain cities

I think the differences are that 1) Equipment can be produced competitively, driving down the profit on an equipment rental business, whereas in certain cities the housing is not allowed to be produced in great numbers, and 2) For a business, the depreciable capital expenses are tax deductible, while land is never depreciated or amortized (since land lasts forever). These factors reduce the profit and income tax for an equipment rental business. On the other hand, where housing is expensive, a large fraction of the rent is payment for the land, which the business cannot deduct. > Again, this probably just betrays how little I know on the topic, but: couldn't we just tax land and housing separately? Yes, my point in this thread was that individual taxes on vacant, rental, and imputed rental property are more complicated than a tax on the land value (except that Proposition 13 prevents us from increasing property value taxes).