Imposing a tax on buildings makes no sense

The mansion tax is a tax on an asset rather than labour so in that respect it is similar to a land tax. However the important difference is that land ownership is equally inconvenient to us whether or not there is a house on it. We are penalising something which has no negative impact on other people.

A land value tax on the other hand makes more sense because we are indifferent to whether there is a house on the land... in either case we have no right of access. Land ownership is a cost to everyone but the property owner. For this reason it makes sense to impose a tax on land not on buildings.

The land value ceiling: an explanation of how it works

The land value ceiling is a limit imposed by the government on personal land ownership. Under this rule no individual is able to own an amount of land in excess of the land value ceiling. Anyone violating this rule by owning an excess of land will be asked to either give it away or to sell the land. If they do not do so measures will be taken to bring them into line including the possibility of the land being confiscated.

It is a quantity of land measured in market value not the physical area of the land.

There is nothing wrong with a land value ceiling

There is nothing wrong with a land value ceiling because land is finite.

Geolibertarianism is like communism except that we do not share the food we share the land

If we own too much land we are violating the land rights of other people

Definition of land rights: We have a right not to be in the presence of those who violate the Lockean proviso. We have a right not to be in the presence of hyper land-wealthy people. Excessive land wealth is a violation of the land rights of others.

A land value ceiling would improve land inequality

The political right can have no reasonable objection to the imposition of a land value ceiling or limit... because land is finite.

Geolibertarianism is the only solution to land inequality

Unlike other forms of inequality land inequality is a civic and political problem (we are justified to take action...) because land ownership denies to others access to land. Other forms of wealth do not make third parties less wealthy. Land inequality can be resolved by geolibertarianism. We are justified to take action by failing to continue to recognise (no longer recognising) certain land claims. Defending these obsolete land claims will then be seen as an aggressive act.