> Rendering it revenue-neutral would lead to misallocation. Rendering ownership of land revenue-neutral does not imply rendering all economic activity on said

> Rendering it revenue-neutral would lead to misallocation. Rendering ownership of land revenue-neutral does not imply rendering all economic activity on said land revenue-neural. In fact it does the opposite, ensuring that the returns to labor and capital are allocated justly. > When the scope of "improvements" is properly understood to include all human activity relating to the land—not just obvious things like builidngs but everything done to deliberately or incidentally increase the value of the land—there is no "unimproved" value left to tax. Sure there is. All natural resources on that land, which existed before humans ever set foot on it, comprise the unimproved value of land. There is also the value of location arising from the community (infrastructure, proximity to labor, proximity to customers) which is not attributable to any improvements upon the land.