I finally had time to watch this video. I still disagree. I don't see how this would prod big agribusiness to operate in a more sustainable manner, especially as it pushes their few remaining small competitors out of business. The speaker says that the land tax would punish people whose land stays idle. This is not what we need. As I said already, too much green space is being destroyed for developments that no one really needs. The only way a land tax would avoid this is if "protected green space" is considered a use equal in value to commercial or residential development. He says something about infrastructure being extended to this undeveloped land, essentially becoming an investment with no return. But who decided to extend utilies to that land? The owners? How about not extend the infrastructure until there is a commitment to develop?
Finally, the speaker contrasts land and property tax, as if those are the only taxes possible. Yes, I understand that that specific comparison was his point. Nothing he says, though, shows how either tax is superior to income tax, the only tax based directly on someone's ability to pay.
I don't think you are considering how much of an incentive there would be to use existing, already developed land. Again, think of empty parking lots, abandoned housing units, etc--all of which owners are disincentivized to improve or use in current system. There's also a good argument to be made that even when green space is bought andowned, there will be more incentive for more of those lands' holders to manage the land in an environmentally responsible manner than there would be in the current system. The very concerns you raise will not be addressed or remedied any faster in current system.
In said video, they're comparing and contrasting those particular taxation systems because that's the point. Income tax didn't come up because that wasn't the focus. The point there was that he was distinguishing LVT from property tax because many people confuse the two or assume they are the same thing. Few people are confusing Income taxes with LVT.
Income taxes are an unfair burden on the lower classes, by the way. The rich will continue to get out of them with loopholes, or find ways to continue to launder their money in shelters. Proponents of the LVT argue that the landed rich will have more difficulty avoiding paying LVT.
Income taxes are so archaic, unimaginative, and crippling to the very people they are supposed to most benefit. It's also telling that the most wealthy and politically influential tend to be totally fine with continuing the current system where the poorest classes always seem to end up paying a higher percentage of the fruits of their labor than the wealthiest classes.
But OK, let's continue with that broken neolib shit and not dare to think outside of the box. Bandaids on gunshot wounds.