There is definateky value provided in exchange for rent. Rent is paying to stay in someone elses building or what not, not just the land. you are essentially paying the landlord instead of building your own home.
If you think there is no value to living inside, well, that's just delusional.
A land value tax is a tax on the unimproved value of the land itself. If you improve it (build a house for example) you've created value, and that isn't included. The value added by the landowner is a small portion of the amount of rent you pay in San Francisco.
Sure, there is a component of rent that comes from the structure. But that isn't the component that causes the price difference between an apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan and the same size apartment in West Texas or Detroit.
And what limits that supply? Some combination of a limited supply of land and limited planning permission, neither of which are created by the landlord and both of which could very reasonably be taxed.
> There is definateky value provided in exchange for rent. Rent is paying to stay in someone elses building or what not, not just the land. you are essentially paying the landlord instead of building your own home.
True, renting isn't merely usage of the house; renting involves more than that. A landlord is required to maintain upkeep on the housing and ensure the property remains functioning. If you buy a house you need to pay for that yourself and the costs can be situationally high. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this is true in US, but its true in NL at least.)
If you think there is no value to living inside, well, that's just delusional.