I find amazing that the problems found while implementing this were things that I, imitating solutions from elsewhere, considered and addressed. I didn't even have the luxury of experience to consider those issues to be showstopper. I think we need to see the parallels between fundamentally the same problems rather than finding bespoke solutions:
> You handle that the same way income taxes do: the first X amount is exempt, like a standard deduction, applied to the land under someone's primary residence. Pair it with a rolling multi-year average for assessment so value spikes phase in gradually instead of hitting all at once. Keeps the incentive against passive land-holding everywhere else intact, without the blanket caps that also protect speculators. Instead of using one tool to fix it all, you use multiple tools that work together to make efficient systems
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842540
And also:
> Yeah, no. The only land that should be exempt is the one under your primary residence. If you're doing something productive with it, like extracting value, renting it out, whatever, it's not just your residence anymore, and it should be taxed like any other land. The whole point is that productive/extractive use is supposed to generate enough return to cover the tax. If it doesn't, that's the market telling you it's not being used efficiently enough to justify holding it
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842584
> You handle that the same way income taxes do: the first X amount is exempt, like a standard deduction, applied to the land under someone's primary residence. Pair it with a rolling multi-year average for assessment so value spikes phase in gradually instead of hitting all at once. Keeps the incentive against passive land-holding everywhere else intact, without the blanket caps that also protect speculators. Instead of using one tool to fix it all, you use multiple tools that work together to make efficient systems
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842540
And also:
> Yeah, no. The only land that should be exempt is the one under your primary residence. If you're doing something productive with it, like extracting value, renting it out, whatever, it's not just your residence anymore, and it should be taxed like any other land. The whole point is that productive/extractive use is supposed to generate enough return to cover the tax. If it doesn't, that's the market telling you it's not being used efficiently enough to justify holding it
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842584