I've spent 5 minutes reading about this, but the key difference between this and regular property tax that most of us are used to (in the US anyway) is that it

I've spent 5 minutes reading about this, but the key difference between this and regular property tax that most of us are used to (in the US anyway) is that it taxes the value of the land, irrespective of any buildings on it. So it encourages land owners to maximize the utility of land they own, vs. leaving it underdeveloped. Right now, there's less incentive to improve or repair buildings on existing land if taxes are high, since those improvements would make taxes go even higher. By tying it to the land value irrespective of improvement, the thinking is that it should encourage development. As a homeowner, this sort of thing does concern me, though. I live in a low density, single-family area. A taxing authority might decide that my area is worth more - e.g. politically if there was a push for higher density housing - and proceed to value the land higher and my taxes would go up. This might make it unappealing to own and live in the house, and I would have to leave. Of course, this is seen as the correct outcome by a lot of people.