The point of land value tax is to charge the same taxes on an empty lot as to a building close by on the same sized lot. Under regular property taxes a speculator might buy a building, tear it down, and sit on the vacant lot for years, as a vacant lot is worth less and so lowers their taxes. With a land value tax they pay the same money either way, which may be higher overall - the general expectation is denser cities would set the tax higher to encourage land to be put to more productive usage - taller buildings, ground floor retail to go with the apartments or office space, etc.
Perhaps this isn't the value of the land as you would like to define it, but rather a way for local government to encourage land be put to more productive usage for everyone who lives or works nearby - without dictating exactly what that usage might be.
The problem with your comment is that you're appealing to a phrase, "land value tax", that isn't original to you. The definition you want to give to it is not compatible with the definition that everyone else uses. (And indeed, isn't even connected to the concept of "land value", making it unclear why you'd want to use those words.)
This allows you to avoid the logical inconsistency in what counts as land value that most proponents commit, at the minor cost that nothing you say has any meaning. What happens when I try to respond to your new point of view and you reply that, actually, you mean something different by "money" than what is normally understood?
What would you think if you voted to establish a "land value tax" and the tax that was put in place comported with the ordinary definition, instead of yours?
Land value tax already has a specific meaning as a class of tax systems. If it's poorly named from your point of view, I'm sorry - but I had nothing to do with the naming.
> Land value tax already has a specific meaning as a class of tax systems.
Yes, that's my point. Your use is incompatible with the existing use. You are not responsible for the conventional use of the phrase "land value tax", but you certainly are responsible for presenting your own ideas under the same name and acting confused when people assume you're using the ordinary sense of the phrase.
You are assuming that all real estate owners are paying taxes.
Also, in blighted areas buying improved land may actually be discouraged by LVT because of demolition costs. Thus vacant land should be more valuable than improved land. Can you resolve the paradox?
Two identical pieces of land, both pay the same in taxes, one requires more work to improve it (as it needs a tear down first). So that piece of land will sell for a lower price than its neighbor.
Perhaps this isn't the value of the land as you would like to define it, but rather a way for local government to encourage land be put to more productive usage for everyone who lives or works nearby - without dictating exactly what that usage might be.