> 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.

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.