> Taxing land sounds fair enough, but I was under the impression we are already subsidizing a lot of farming anyhow I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

> Taxing land sounds fair enough, but I was under the impression we are already subsidizing a lot of farming anyhow I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Taxing land doesn't really have much connection to farming specifically. In fact, most high value land is urban areas and cities (NYC, SF, Silicon Valley, etc.), so farm land is mostly irrelevant when talking about a land value tax. > Any aren't we supposed to be reclaiming land to turn back into national parks, planting trees, and capturing carbon. To do so, we need to use more land more efficiently: less sprawl, and more building up/dense. And a land value tax incentivizes precisely that, since in high value areas, the tax would be high enough that it dense buildings would be the only real financially viable option. This increase in density in the core means we don't need to develop other land (and even reclaim some of it to parks as you suggest).