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

1A)Actually yes taxing them will help make them be efficient enough to cultivate the land or make them sell the land to someone efficient enough to cultivate it. 1B)So according to my opponent something that will create hundreds of jobs and feed hundreds of people isn't worth it because it benefits those people instead of benefiting a large corporation. I will have to disagree with my opponent. And that is why taxing unused land will improve the economy because for ALFA it's not worth it but for other people those jobs and that food is worth it. 1C)It is impossible for a competitor to step into the market when there isn't any land for them to cultivate crops on. The reason ALFA is able to purposely create shortages is because they own so much land and are not using it. A good way to make it so a competitor can more easily step into the market is to put incentives on ALFA to make them either cultivate the land or sell it to a competitor so that competitor can cultivate it. My opponent is misunderstanding what is being taxed in my proposal. The tax has nothing to do with who is making money. It taxes corporations who are not using land. The profit of that corporation could be billions. For example many of the largest oil companies currently have millions of acres of leased land with billions of cubic feet of oil in the land yet those oil companies are not drilling for that oil. This tax would tax them for not using that land, and give them incentives to actually drill for oil. http://www.knoxviews.com... http://dailycaller.com... http://wyofile.com... Cons comparison of increasing taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans to reduce taxes on the richest 1% of Americans is completely incomparable given that my proposed tax isn't a tax on corporations who don't make money; it's a tax on corporations who don't use land. I ask my opponent to stop being dishonest. 2)There is no demand for "new construction" there is only demand for the goods being constructed. Again I repeat modernizing a building is far cheaper and more efficient than building a new one. There can't be a demand for something when there are thousands of said something still in the market with no one willing to buy them. You saying so is dishonest. My proposal is to increase taxes on unoccupied apartment buildings not to force owners to change their prices. Stop misleading us about what the proposal is. 2b)My opponent replies, "Pro hasn't stated any arguments as to why these taxes would help." My opponent is lying Given that I've posted these arguments as to why these taxes would help TWO times already (this will be the third). This tax will provide incentive for ALFA to either sell the land to someone who believes they can grow crops on it; or it will provide ALFA incentive to develop the land themselves instead of leaving it idle. A tax on empty apartments gives incentive for the apartment owner to lower rents and provide people with a roof over their heads. The incentives also apply to new apartment builders. They will know that if they have empty apartments that they will be taxed, meaning they will have more incentives to build the proper amount of apartments. 2C)If they didn't need the tax to teach them effective business practice then they wouldn't currently be building hundreds of apartments when there is no one to occupy them. My opponents second to last paragraph is another lie I've provided plenty of examples of how these taxes would create incentives to increase the production of goods and to reduce the overproduction of unneeded goods. ACME will have a more likely chance to acquire ALFAs land under my proposal because selling the land to ACME will not only gain ALFA money from the selling of the land but it will lower their taxes. Meaning even my opponent just gave another example of how this tax will help the economy. He has shown that this tax will speed up transactions on the free market, allowing corporations to speed up the production of goods. My opponent's last paragraphs last sentence is again another lie about the proposal. The proposal is not that corporations not using land have to sell it, it is that when they don't use that land it is taxed in order to create incentives to use that land.