Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax.

1A - Pro states that taxing a corporation for the land it doesn't use will help them to be efficient enough to cultivate the land, or to sell it. There is no argument provided for why a corporation would suddenly become more efficient due to a tax increase, and no argument addressing demand. If there is sufficient demand for the land to be used, then the corporation will use it if able. If somebody wants to purchase the land(also demand), then the corporation will do so if it is in the corporation's benefit. Pro has still failed to show how the tax will affect demand.For a lesson on supply and demand, I refer to investopedia. Supply and demand naturally reach a point of equilibrium, where the amount of supply is at it's greatest efficiency when it meats the amount of demand.[1] As an example: ALFA corporation plants, harvests, and sells alfalfa. During market research, they determine, due to historic sales and polling, that there is a solid demand for up to 10,000 bales of alfalfa at $50 per bale. They also know that they can yield 400 bales per acre. They can then determine that the greatest efficiency is in harvesting 25 acres to achieve 10,000 bales to meet the demand. In years past, they reduced prices from $60 per bale to $40 per bale, but from the drop from $50 to $40 they saw no increase in the number of sales, which is why $50 per bale is determined the best price. Adding a tax to ALFA for the other 75 acres will do nothing to increase demand, productivity, or the economy.1B - Pro states that if a corporation can undergo a major, year-long endeavor, which will yield hundreds of jobs, is a worthwhile endeavor even if it only nets the company $1 of profit. This is poor business sense. If an especially hot summer arrives, or if grasshopper populations spike, or any other number of problems arise, ALFA corporation could stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, all in an attempt to earn $1. If every corporation took such risks, more corporations would face bankruptcy due to emergencies or problems. Pro also fails to consider that ALFA corporation might not be able to even sell the end product if the demand isn't enough.1C - Pro assumes that there is no land available for a competitor to use, even though the entire premise is based on an abundance of unused land. This is a contradiction, either all the land is being used, or some of it isn't. If some of the land isn't being used, there is opportunity for a competitor to acquire the land and use it. Adding tax won't increase demand for the land if the demand isn't currently in the market.Pro's link to knoxviews.com has an article with no references for data, and a link to a bill that is a bad link. This citation cannot be considered as it has no substantial information. Similarly, dailycaller.com has no references for its information. The last link, wyofile.com only has a table comparing the number of drilling permits to the number of sites drilled. There is no information on reasons why not all of these permits aren't currently being used. Regardless, this is starting to stray from the initial premise.Pro says I am being dishonest. There is no room for that in a debate. I ask Pro to stick to the topic and arguments. Taxing unused land to subsidize land that is being used is like taxing the poor to subsidize the rich. A corporation may have a positive balance sheet, but the operations for the unused land are at a loss. These losses shouldn't be taxed more than another corporation's gains.2 - Pro states that there is no demand for new construction, with nothing to back up his argument except for a new apartment complex being built next to an existing, mostly vacant complex. I propose that developers wouldn't risk millions of dollars in building new complexes unless there were a demand for the new construction. Pro also states that 'modernizing' is cheaper than building new homes, but again, the demand seems to be in new home construction. If you had the choice between a new home and a remodeled home for the same price, the new home would appear to be the better option. Having all new materials means less maintenance than an old building that has been updated.2B - My arguments have been that increasing taxes don't increase demand. Pro decided to quote the instance where I left out the word demand, but I hoped from the arguments before and after that the importance of demand is clear. Again, I ask Pro to refrain from calling me a liar and to stick to the arguments. Pro consistently calls these taxes 'incentives', not understanding that the only reason a corporation isn't using all of the land it has available is because it can't. Either due to capital problems, lack of demand, or regulation. Corporations are designed to make money, and if they could make money off that land, they would. Pro would use tax on vacant apartments to incentivize owners to lower rates, for the purpose of giving people roofs over their heads. How far should the government take this? If a property is still vacant, should it be gifted to someone who is homeless? I propose that property is the property of the owner, and the choice for the price is up to the owner. If the owner chooses to price it too high, it won't rent and the owner misses out on money. And again, developers already have a much greater incentive to build the proper number of apartments. If they build too many they lose money. That incentive already exists, yet Pro states that an additional tax(or an additional burden on un-rented units) will somehow affect demand.2C - Pro takes the stance that taxes will 'teach' developers to be more effective. The free market and laws of supply and demand are what teach developers to be effective. Pro provides no reference for the hundreds of new apartments that aren't being occupied, so that argument has no merit. Again, Pro calls my argument a lie, we all know where I stand on that. My second to last paragraph was that additional taxes won't increase demand, and Pro hasn't stated where this new demand would come from. Pro only states that increasing taxes on unused land will increase demand.ALFA will sell to ACME, if the deal makes financial sense, with or without the 'incentive' of a tax. I propose that Pro's 'incentive' is actually a penalty, and a penalty on efficient business. If a business doesn't have enough demand to support 100% production, it is more efficient to operate at a lower production level. If a business keeps resources it isn't currently using, it makes sense that the business expects to use those resources in the future.Pro finishes with another accusation of a lie. Due to the attack I won't even address that.I would close by reiterating that demand is what drives an economy. When there is more demand than supply, corporations can increase supply(via expanding, or new corporations starting up) to meet that demand. If the demand isn't enough to justify such increase in supply, then an additional tax will do nothing to increase the demand, and will only place further burden on corporations.[1]http://www.investopedia.com... sections A, B, C, D