As there's (apparently) such an under-supply of people who earn those high ranges, restricting that demographic only makes everyone poorer because wealth creation is hence lower. Maybe it would reduce those wages somewhat but it's unlikely.

Everyone who advocates a land value tax needs to explain how housing used to be affordable, even in places like California, without land value taxes.

There were fewer people and more land that wasn't being used. It's fairly simple, supply was higher, demand was lower. As our population increased and we developed more and more land, the supply shrunk while the demand grew.

Yes, we all know that -- the point is that affordable housing is possible without a land value tax, and we know that because it actually happened.

So your answer is... "Thanos did nothing wrong"?

Shall we all wait for covid20 to wipe out enough people that the housing supply overwhelms demand and prices drop?

No, we should build more housing so that the supply and demand curves intersect in a different place.

Land value taxes and Georgism in general are utopian nonsense that have never done any good anywhere at any time. People love to trot them out as solutions to the housing affordability problem but can never show how they would help -- because they can't help!

Building more housing is the only solution, everyone knows it, and weird pie-in-the-sky stuff like land value tax are distractions that ought to be ignored.

> This can't change without taxing the land value.

Yes it can. Bar corporations from owning residential real estate. Taxing land value will just cause an exodus into hellhole suburbs.