But I do want to discourage vacant lots and encourage tall buildings, that’s seems the feature. We have only so much land and a large amount of people who want to live on it, increased density is the solution.

LVT turns an asset into a liability. The fact that they can afford it isn't the point. They won't want to afford it if it's a liability unless they live in it or can rent it out.

Meanwhile city coffers fill up with cash that can be used to build social housing.

The only downside to LVT on non primary residences is the epic political fight it would require against the super rich.

How do you know they would pay more property tax than now? These skyscrapers are very tall and thin. They use very little land and the tax would be divided up among many floors.

If you wanted to design a building to pay as little land tax as possible, this is what it would look like.

They use a small amount of some of the most valuable land in the United States.

They also purchased "air rights" from neighboring buildings.

Their LVT bill (assuming air rights were also taken into account) would not be small.

It seems that people also don't actually like living in them. It's particularly noteworthy that they're speaking out about it because they're risking doing real damage to their investment by doing so. That's a sign that they really don't like it.

If it were built primarily as a place to live rather than as an investment I don't think it would look the same at all. There would be far greater emphasis on livability, less on views and probably a much lower height.

Whatever the land value tax is, neighboring buildings will pay far more, because they use more land and there are fewer floors to spread the tax over.

A LVT increases the cost per square foot more for shorter buildings. A 10 story building pays about twice as much on a square foot basis as a 20 story building. The whole point is to encourage taller buildings.

(It’s not quite that simple since taller buildings probably have less usable square footage per floor, but that’s basically how it works.)

If they can afford the tax that's fine. At least then the inhabitants of the city get value out of the empty apartment buildings. Hell, it can be used to build other apartment buildings that aren't empty.

Not sure why you want to encourage empty lots?

Yes these owners 'can afford' more but it will definitely discourage what OP was talking about that it's just land banking for future asset appreciation. The land value on this kind of property is extremely high so tax is not low even if it's a tall building

I think it’s fine to discourage vacant lots, but the skyscrapers we are talking about are the opposite of a vacant lot.

Whatever the tax on these buildings is under LVT, it will be more unaffordable by their neighbors that are shorter and use more land. There is a higher incentive for neighboring buildings to get torn down and get replaced by taller skyscrapers like these.

It’s just odd to point to the buildings least affected by the tax as the sort of development that would be discouraged.