James Ahiakpor writes as below:  
-----Original Message-----  
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:07 PM  
(snip)  
  
Much too much has been made of the claim that the supply of land is   
inelastic.  Warren again asserts this: "Given the usual diagram, the   
supply curve [of land] is pretty much inelastic, i.e., vertical."  But   
carefully considered, the claim is incorrect.  Only the supply of total   
land may be fixed or perfectly inelastic, that is, excluding dredging or   
reclamation.  But land devoted to alternative uses -- farming, housing,   
playground, road construction, etc.-- is not so.  Thus, it is not such a   
clear-cut case that land is the most suitable object for taxation on the   
basis of elasticity of supply.  But note again that I'm not against   
raising taxes; everyone who earns an income should pay for the   
legitimate functions or services of government.  
  
(snip)  
  
  
Mason responds:   
        Taxing jurisdictions are DEFINED as fixed areas of land.  That's the  
relevant kind elasticity. Labor and capital move in and out.  
        The land tax being considered is not on one alternative use of land,  
as James apparently thinks.  He implies that the proposal is to tax people  
only if they use their land for farming, housing, playgrounds, road  
construction, or "etc." (school playgrounds, in fact, are normally exempt).  
The tax we are discussing is on all private land in the jurisdiction.  That  
is the basis of its neutrality.    
        James' proposed income tax, OTOH, if we may be allowed to assume  
(with Quesnay, Locke, Smith, George, et al.) it is shifted to landowners,  
discriminates against lands used more intensively.  In practice today, it  
also discriminates massively against uses that yield cash over those that  
yield just imputed income. Holding land for the rise also gets preferred  
treatment.  
        As to public land, the tax should also be on public land, IMHO, and  
in Taiwan it is, with salubrious effects on bureaucrats.  
          
Mason Gaffney