A tariff for owning an excess of land would reduce prices

If prices of a valuable (rentable) resource are high it means that those who own the resource are able to rent it out to others at high cost and subsequently purchase yet more. Any new land that does enter the market can be purchased by those already with land, they are rich, and this dynamic results in (exacerbates) great disparities of wealth. Even if we do not have a right to land (if we could sell it that would result in perpetual wealth), there is a problem with people being in a position to profit from our poverty. It is too difficult for people to get their own property if too great a quantity is owned by an exclusive group. Many people have more than enough land.

A penalty for owning too much land would improve prices for the rest of the population.

A property tariff would reduce prices in the market

If resources are limited, which they are, then we should strive to make the best use of them that we can. The problem and situation to be avoided is when too great a number of people have no access to land and Capital. To make it possible for people to have access to Capital at an acceptable price it means we must impose a restriction on the acquisition (or retention) of property. People should not be permitted to have any quantity of property that they are able to afford. It should be illegal (for an individual) to leave insufficient land to others. If we own an excess of property this means it becomes expensive for others. The problem caused by Landlordism is that other properties become too expensive. If people buy land for investment purposes only this means they are not making the best use of the resources (there is no cost, rent to make the acquisition of fallow land unprofitable) and yet they do not sell. This becomes a problem when they are able to buy up a great deal of land which (necessarily) restricts, denies access to others. Since land, and other resources are and will be used for investment it might be prudent to restrain the extent to which a solitary person may own land.

If people do not have sufficient access to Capital, it will be possible for the 'rich' to exploit their poverty by making resources available to rent which results in further and continued wealth for the privileged class. We cannot make Capital available (to the poor) without denying it to someone else. If we impose a tariff on (the ownership of) Capital then this will make resources cheaper in the marketplace.

Land and housing inequality can be alleviated with a property tariff

There is a problem if the ownership of resources in an area is dominated by too few individuals. This means that the resources are not being put into use effectively; other people could make more efficient use of them. Would it not be better if a charge or penalty were to be imposed on those who have more than an appropriate amount, according to the concepts held in the Lockean proviso.

The cost to protect the land is often borne by those who suffer from the inequality.

Socialism is designed to protect the landowners.

We are prevented from having access to land and property that we would otherwise be able to use, as a result of the inequality. The property is being occupied by people who do not derive efficient use from it. Rich people will not sell their homes without incentive to do so. House prices will not fall unless people want to sell their homes. People use their homes as an investment. For property to be a useful investment it must be the case that there is a market price to cease the denial of access to the property, at least to a particular person. If a house is expensive it is because people want it.

To redress housing (land) inequality we might impose a tariff or charge on property ownership.

There should be disincentives against hoarding resources

Is it not better to share the land in a more even way?

If we are owed (a minimum amount of) land, if (we assume) there is more than enough for everyone, then to purchase land from someone who has very little places the burden to replace this onto others. If we are owed land and it is possible to sell that land then it is easy to have a perpetual income from selling what we are given, each time. If only people who have above an established maximum are forced to give up their land in such circumstances then this does not result in a perpetual income, when everyone is below the threshold; you are no longer owed land since no one has more than is acceptable.

If land is always owned by someone (no land is Government owned) then a property cap, or Land Value Tax, would ensure that land is generally available at a reasonable price.

If we are not owed land then restraints, disincentives on (excessive) land ownership will result in the availability of land at reasonable prices, for those that have no land. A disincentive to hoard a large quantity of property will result in more efficient use of resources.

A wealth ceiling would make the use of property more efficient

A property, or wealth, ceiling would have the advantages of (derived from) making sure that resources are being used efficiently. This means that when someone has above a certain threshold of property, they will not be permitted to obtain more. Further acquisitions will not be recognised and existing property above that level will be repossessed. This means that people are able to only be wealthy up to a certain point. People are prevented from hoarding assets and (thereby, in doing so) preventing the use by others who would derive greater value from them.

The nature of resources and (exclusive) property ownership means that, via rent, landlords are able to accumulate property almost unhindered, when (provided that) their rental income exceeds their cost of living. The extra income can be used to purchase more properties which, in turn may be leased out. Without a check on this process, those with property may accumulate more and more, to the detriment of the Society they are living in.

A wealth cap, or ceiling would provide a good means to ensure that the Society is not hindered by the accumulation of wealth and property by individuals so that resources can be better utilised by the rest.

We have a right to impose a land tax

Access to land is a natural right, assuming it is relatively plentiful and so to impose a tax on having too much land is not aggressive. It is legitimate to impose an inequality tax on those who have not left enough land for others. We have a right to remove people from owning land which excessively prevents others from access to land which is their natural right. If land is a natural right, then we must have the right to remove people, or to impose a tax. We have a right to impose a tax on people who have taken more land than adequately leaves enough for others.

What is our compensation for respecting property rights?

Is there a reason to accept that the current, pertaining arrangement of property ownership is equitable? We normally grant property rights when they are reciprocated; we consent not to harm others, if we ourselves will not be harmed. With land, we consent to stay and remain away from the property of others but are we being reciprocated proportionately?

If we have not been granted a sufficiency of land then is it acceptable that we are expected to respect the property rights of others? In what sense can the person who is ejected from the property and land retaliate? And if there is not equitable means to retaliate then in what sense are the existing rights legitimate?