Source of these ideas: Economist Henry George.[0] When land is taxed, but the property on it is not, and rates are normalized to maintain neutral tax flow due

Source of these ideas: Economist Henry George.[0] When land is taxed, but the property on it is not, and rates are normalized to maintain neutral tax flow due to the change: 1. Someone who owns land with little productive development, will see a large tax increase. 2. Someone who owns the adjacent same-sized plot, with higher value development, will pay the same tax, instead of a prior much greater tax. So development isn't taxed, making development more attractive, as it will have a higher return. Much greater incentive to usefully develop land. Much greater disincentives to holding relatively less usefully developed land. Also good alignment: (1) a land tax, taxes the exclusionary asset, paying a tax on essentially rents the land from the community. Which makes sense. (2) Not paying a tax on development, removes a wealth tax on any land owner from any financial scale. (3) That wealth tax on wealth disincentivize development, relative to other investments. (4) The lower property taxes on less developed land, that we have now, means that high value property wealth tax, is subsiding the returns of Lower development land owners. (5) And that imbalance accounts for lands use as a financial instrument, instead of land + use, as the investment. Holding land prices up, while subsidizing non-development holding. The elimination of most land-price driven investment, would reduce a massive amount of artificial demand, resulting in more supply and lower prices, for those who wanted to make returns by further developing the land. Land's use as "gold" is incredibly wasteful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George