The government is still free to ban or tax certain uses they don't like.
Well, no, its very different than having no LVT, and in a way which encourages, rather than discourages, wealth concentration; given the context in which it was suggested (specifically, in response to options for reducing wealth concentration being sought), that's a pretty salient difference.
> The government is still free to ban or tax certain uses they don't like.
A tax that makes certain uses generally economically impractical, as a heavy LVT would be, is effectively identical to a ban on those uses.
Could you please explain that?
LVT doesn't make any difference to land use. But it does make land owning expensive. So you could suggest it as a way to reduce wealth concentration. I don't see the contradiction?
> A tax that makes certain uses generally economically impractical, as a heavy LVT would be, is effectively identical to a ban on those uses.
Huh? Eg a moderate tax on petrol stations would certainly lead to fewer petrol stations, wouldn't it? Things happen at the margins.
Which means if it is heavy (or even noticeable) for optimally extractive landuse, it is crushing for any substantially less profitable use.