A limit on land ownership would reduce the investment status of domestic property

A limit on land ownership would mean that it is easier to purchase a house because prices would be lower.

There would be a reduced incentive to hoard land and become a landlord, meaning that properties could be more easily acquired since they would have lower market value; their status as investment assets would have been reduced.

Land inequality is a form of poverty

The quantity of useful land in any given community will always be limited. To get the most benefit from the land, and to be rich requires that it is allocated in a proportionate manner. If there is great inequality and many of the inhabitants are subject to having no choice but to pay rent for access to land then this is a form of poverty.

It would be good to know how much land people own

We could use our land resources in a more efficient manner by imposing a Land Value Ceiling on each individual.

If all the land is privately owned, there is no way in which someone can acquire land of their own. To make land cheaper and more accessible, it would be efficient to impose a disincentive against hoarding and owning too great a quantity of land. In nature there is a physical risk in claiming too great a territory, without an equivalent analogue (in law) there is no way to improve the availability of land. However, if it is public knowledge how much land is owned by each person we would know who is making us more uncomfortable and there would be social reasons not to hoard land.

A Land Value Ceiling would encourage more efficient use of the land

Land is used more efficiently if a limit is placed on its ownership.

Income tax makes it difficult for the poor to become better off

Being rich enables a person to refuse unpleasant work, whereas most people must do some from of work which they dislike. The less wealth we have the more easily we are exploited by employers.

Someone who has their own land is able to refuse all offers of employment because, if bad things happen to them they are able to grow food on the land. Poor people are not able to grow their own food because they have no land. The primary means to measure wealth is land ownership; we are poor if we have no land. So the problem of people being poor and Societal inequality is not that others are earning much more than us (why care if a poor person is able to earn some money?) the problem arises when we are made poor by the wealth of others, as in the case of land. We care not that other people are earning money, but that they have land, assuming we are being rational and want to have land of our own.

If Government, and the taxation system can be used to encourage 'fairness' in wealth then it is the wrong approach to seek to do this by punishing (taxing) monetary income, the best way is to tax assets, specifically land.

A Land Value Tax (or even a Land Value Ceiling) is effective in reducing inequality, whereas an income tax is less so and is even detrimental to allowing the poor to improve their circumstances.

Without taxation there would be no land inequality

The purpose of taxes is to help the rich keep their land.

Without taxes it would be more difficult to maintain unfair land inequality, because people would not be willing to defend the land from squatters and other people who would like to make use of the land. Taxation is the cause of land inequality.

There is no reason not to impose a Lockean land ceiling

Land is too expensive so to improve this situation we can and should impose a (Lockean) land ceiling. There is no good argument against imposing a land ceiling.