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

1A - If a company is inefficient, taxing them won't help them to increase efficiency. Efficiency in business increases profit margin, so an inefficient company will have a smaller profit margin. Adding tax to that reduced profit margin can damage or destroy a struggling balance sheet.1B - If a company will only make $1 from an endeavor, then it isn't worth pursuing. Corporations have to turn profit, and can't waste time, money, and resources on large projects that result in little to no profit.1C - If ALFA is purposefully creating food shortages, then a competitor will step in and undersell them. This is one of the strengths of a free market. A sole corporation can try to manipulate prices, but anybody can jump in and steal their base by selling cheaper. Pro's premise for the debate didn't focus on corporations not using land for price manipulation, but rather unused land in general. Even if one corporation was manipulating prices, a tax on unused land would hurt any corporation who couldn't currently operate at full capacity due to lack of capital or lack of demand.Taxes won't be used to reduce the deficit. All taxes except for income taxes are used for the areas in which they are taken. Gas taxes are used for transportation expenditures. Local taxes are used for police, fire fighters, and schools. Taxes on unused land would have to be used in the development of land in some way. Pro's idea of using taxes on idle land to reduce taxes on farms is counter-intuitive. Taxing someone who isn't making money, to reduce the taxes of someone who is making money doesn't do any good for those who aren't making money. It would be the same as increasing taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans in order to reduce taxes on the top 1% of Americans.Further, Pro states that corporations who 'refuse' to use their lands will be the only ones taxed more. In any economy, corporations will try to get the best profit that they can. If a corporation isn't running at full capacity, it is either due to lack of capital, or lack of demand. Adding tax will not increase demand.2 - The demand is for newer construction, not just newer appliances. Renters and buyers know that a new building will have less upkeep than an old building on average. The reason the developer made the new complex is because there is a demand for it. The existing complex would need renovation and perhaps price reduction to try and compete with that same demographic. Anyway, in a free market, the government can't force a company to increase or decrease their prices. Otherwise, the free market is lost, and that is not what we have built America upon.2B - Taxing those who are running under full capacity(which means they aren't making as much money as they could) will not help the economy, and Pro hasn't stated any arguments as to why these taxes would help. More likely, corporations and complex management companies would go under financially due to having an added financial burden. Pro doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the complex management *can't* reduce prices. Perhaps if they did, they would be able to rent 100% but not be able to balance their sheet, causing them to go under more quickly. Pro wants to decide for businesses that they must lower prices if demand is low, but if demand is low, increased taxes will only hurt.2C - New developers already have incentive to build the correct amount of apartments. They know that if they build too many they will lose money. They don't need a tax to teach them effective business practice.3 - Pro is correct that the economy is better when land and buildings are utilized, but confuses cause and effect. When there is more demand in a market, more businesses are created and expand to meet that demand. When there is more demand for houses, developers build more houses to meet that demand. You can't stimulate demand by taxing land that isn't used. The land will only be used when the demand is there.In other words, supply is designed to match the demand. You can't increase demand by increasing supply.Pro hasn't stated a single example of how these taxes would stimulate demand in the economy. Without demand, the economy won't improve. Forcing people to pay more when there isn't enough demand, or sell their unused property when there isn't demand, is against the fundamentals of a free market and won't help in any way.As an example, if there is a corporation ACME that decides it wants to use ALFA's unused land for a new factory in which they will make a product that is in demand, they will approach ALFA and make an offer. If ALFA is losing money on the land due to lack of demand, they are likely to sell. This is how the market works. You can't force someone to sell unused land to someone else who needs it if the demand isn't already there.