> So the tax is on the land instead of the improvement on the land. Your last comment seems to contradict this one though. You were describing a tax based on t

> So the tax is on the land instead of the improvement on the land. Your last comment seems to contradict this one though. You were describing a tax based on the value of the land rather than the value of improvements. That's precisely what we have today. If you're wanting to punish people for leaving land underutilized you do in fact need to tax based on what the potential value of the land is when fully utilized. Thst runs smack into the challenge of how to value potential value if the land was fully utilized and the question of whether we can be so sure that high density is the answer that we disincentivize lower density living. Edit: reading this again I think we're either saying the same thing in slightly different ways or I just misunderstood you. When I'm talking about improvements I do mean potential future improvements that could be made to the land, I think that's what most people mean by a land value tax. Meaning, taxing a person for the value of a piece of land as if there were already a condo on it because we'd rather them build that than leave it empty or build a single family home. I see that as a huge problem, both because it requires a massive amount of accurate (and oppressive) central planning and because it's impossible to know what the land would be worth when "fully utilized". We would have to define what fully utlizied means, accepting that it's entirely based on personal preference, and then envision what the whole community would look like if built out that way and what that would then be valued at.