>The minute it becomes inconvenient you would see the wealthy divest their ownership of land in favour of some other asset with less tax burden. Wouldn't that

>The minute it becomes inconvenient you would see the wealthy divest their ownership of land in favour of some other asset with less tax burden. Wouldn't that be a "win" situation as well? Because at least it will reduce the incentive to go all NIMBY on new denser development, which seems to be the main blocker when it comes to housing pricing (and, consequentially, ownership/renting). Unless I misunderstood what you said, it seems like you are saying that this policy won't completely solve the issue. But it would make it at least better, while, at the same time, making "property as a store of wealth" less viable. Which would (in my estimation) make housing cheaper (directly) just due to people not hoarding the land anymore and (indirectly) due to decreased NIMBYism blocking denser housing developments. So while it might not be a win-win-win, situation, it could definitely be a win-win situation. Or at least a singular win situation without much losses or negatives attached to it (at least as far as I am seeing this, which could definitely be wrong; in which case, please correct me, as I am thinking through this as I am going; I am far from being the expert on the situation).