Urban land specualtion by the rich pushes the poor to the wall. Henry George postulated that only if single tax imposes on urban land then can the land price will be stable and the serious urban land speculation be resolved. There is little difference between Henry George's idea and John Stewart Mill's resolution to have land value increment tax (LVIT) on the unearned increase in the value of land. But, there are big differences in both their tax scheme and its economic diffects. Mill could tell neither the difference between stock of land value and flow of land rent nor the difference between land value increment tax and capital gain tax. So that Mill's land value increment tax becomes the cost of land seller to increase land price once she can shift tax burden to land buyer (Bogart, 1990). Although George did not point out the difference between stock and flow of land value and land rent, he considered that land rent as current income of landowner. And, once land rent has been completely taxed land speculation would be stopped. George's idea is right to local (city) government, since the size of land rent and land price are closely relate to the quality and quantity of local public goods (Arnott and Stiglitz, 1979; Hartwick, 1980). The above arguments of urban land tax schemes provide a base for us to examine Dr. Sun Yat-sen's idea of land right equalization and thereafter the Act of Land Right Equalization in Taiwan. Dr. Sun was wrong, so did the Act. That is why urban land price soared in the past decade in Taiwan. The recornmended reforms are quite simple. The Act should be thoroughly mended to exempt all the land from land value increment tax. Instead, land value tax could be raised high up to 1% to meet the financial demand of urban government, to increase land utilization rate, and to induce secularly stable land price.