[LVTfan]

Land is finite. Capital can be created infinitely, by thriftiness of Labor.

Land wasn't created by any individual or any corporation. (Minor, and not eternal, exception: Made Land, such as by filling in a swamp or dumping fill alongside a river. After a century or so, it stops being special, and is simply land, whose value comes from its location and the services that are provided to it.

When the companies that issue stock are paying LVT on the land they occupy, and on the finite natural resources they claim for themselves and process to sell to consumers, the value of their stock will be reduced somewhat by that "pre-distribution."

[AnimalMuppet]

If that's where the dividing line is, then bitcoin should be subject to the tax (since it's finite - only a finite amount can ever be created). Ditto collectibles - the finiteness of the supply is the point of collectibles. And ditto stuff like art created by now-dead artists.

So either you need to say that LVT applies to those kinds of assets, or you need a different explanation for why land and not other assets.

[JSavageOne]

Say bitcoin was the single tax. Then people would just not use bitcoin. That's why it wouldn't make for an effective tax.

Land is always in demand (the economic term being that demand is inelastic) since everyone needs it, and it is the source of all material wealth (agriculture, energy, commodities). Thus it is an effective tax.

I have yet to hear an argument for an alternative to land that is more sensible to tax.