> Land value taxes don't destroy natural land. They'd probably preserve it.
Consider a farm on the edge of town. Without LVT, the incentive to sell could be considered positive; i.e. the farmer may sell when they're offered sufficient money for it. With LVT, the incentive to sell could be considered negative; they will be charged more and more in taxes from the state as the town develops up to the boundary of the farm until they can no longer afford _not_ to sell. That means that there is a built in sprawl function to LVT - towns will continue eating up the countryside as their centers push value of land up around them.
In some places farms already pay LVT like real estate taxes. Their real estate taxes are based on the value of potential farming operations on the land.
Consider a farm on the edge of town. Without LVT, the incentive to sell could be considered positive; i.e. the farmer may sell when they're offered sufficient money for it. With LVT, the incentive to sell could be considered negative; they will be charged more and more in taxes from the state as the town develops up to the boundary of the farm until they can no longer afford _not_ to sell. That means that there is a built in sprawl function to LVT - towns will continue eating up the countryside as their centers push value of land up around them.