It makes for a better use of resources if the rich are prevented from owning too much land

The problem with excessive land* ownership is that we have an obligation to make sure that our trade does not impoverish other people. When we buy something we have a duty to ensure that we are not buying the last piece of food from a hungry person, and we can do that by making sure that they have sufficient Capital. We can also make sure that the Society within which we live is still wealthy and that resources are properly allocated, and being an excessive landowner prevents that from being the case.

Being a person who owns an excess of property, specifically land, means that, partly because of our actions, we live in a Society which has not properly allocated resources, because of this we have a duty to ensure that we do not own too much land. The cause of inequality (and poor use of resources) is primarily those who own an excess of assets being allowed to do so, allied with their legal ability to acquire an excess of land.

*land in the generic sense, meaning that the concept may be extended to other natural resources that are limited in their abundance.

A Land Compensation Tax would reduce land inequality

A Land Compensation Tax would reduce land inequality.

Those who own an excess of land owe a tax or rental payment to others in compensation for their entitlement

It can be said that we owe compensation to others who are denied if we have owned, or continue to own, an excessive quantity of land, because this prevents others from having use of a natural resource to which they might rightly claim an entitlement. We own land only if others are satisfied at their compensation, or land ownership, otherwise we are being tyrannical and imposing unfair restrictions on our neighbours, which might lead to a form of economic serfdom, for them. To ameliorate this, compensation can be paid to make sure that we do not cause unnecessary suffering and are considerate of those around us.

A capital tax directed at land with sufficient personal allowance would remedy economic serfdom

Without intervention serfdom is a stable economic scenario for at least part of the population. Economic serfdom, as distinct from legal serfdom can exist in a situation where the individual has insufficient resources to survive and must rely on selling their labour, to those who have more than enough assets. Someone in this position can never alter their standing in life because those purchasing the labour earn more than they spend, through rental income, primarily of land; and so they will never sell their land in fact they are more likely to accumulate yet more. The labour of the serf is used to rent land or to purchase food to survive, there is none (not a significant amount) left over to save, they must pay to eat and have nothing meaningful left over. If land is not for sale at an affordable price, we, the serf, will rely upon either charity, renting land or selling our labour to eat and survive, none of which offer a route to escape their (our) position since they (we) remain landless.

If the (wealthy!) landowners do not want to sell their food, or rent their land, or be charitable, for whatever reason, we (the serf) will have nothing to eat, since to grow and produce food requires land. We then are a slave, not of legal provenance but due to our economic (capital) circumstances, our inheritance, we can refuse to comply without suffering violence (unlike a legal slave) but still we will starve so the outcome is comparable.

The only remedy to ameliorate this situation is to constrain land, capital ownership in some way, perhaps with a tax, but we must pay attention to the profitability of manufacturing food. If it becomes unprofitable to make food then everyone starves. A certain way to avoid this risk would be to ensure a generous personal allowance for land assets so that food can always be made at a profit.

If we have space we are not a burden on others

Arguments about land can equivalently be made about space, since it is limited.

If we have land we are not a burden on others

We will not (be allowed to) become a burden on others if we are prevented from selling land such that after doing so we would have insufficient to live independently.

It should be impossible to sell land such that by doing so, we would have an insufficient amount to live independently, the reason for this rule would be to prevent people from becoming a burden on others. We should be able to sell our land only if we have enough remaining to live freely and independently.

A land registry would make it possible to disallow the sale of land by someone with not much land

It would (might) be a good idea to introduce the concept of a minimum piece, quantity of land. This means that the State will not recognise the transfer if someone seeks to sell this land. To sell the land, the landowner would be required to show that they have more land elsewhere.

If the land agencies would refuse to recognise a divestment (selling) of land below the threshold then we can be confident giving to the landless (those without land) a portion of land; they will not be able to sell it for profit. A land registry of land ownership would allow someone to demonstrate their landlessness by challenging the authorities to show which land is owned by them. If no land can be shown it can be assumed that the person is landless. Land can then be given in confidence to this person since we know that they have no land and will not be able to sell the land and claim landlessness once more.

The ability to prove that we have no land enables people to give more confidently and might be a requirement (an obstacle, if we have not much land) to sell land, if we seek to make sure that everyone has a piece of land. A land registry (which enables people to demonstrate that they have no land) would enable people to prove their poverty and make giving land more secure.

If people cannot sell land to the extent that they are landless we can be confident that to give them land will not result in the donation being wasted; they would not be able to sell what has been given to them.