There is no Federal Property tax now.
Would you tax those closer to borders more, because their land is more expensive to protect than Indiana or Iowa?
One of the few Constitutional tasks the Government is required to do (and has done without an acreage tax) is to provide for the common defense.
Otherwise, we could put on a Federal tax for living next to an Interstate Highway, just to fix the roads.
Whether taxes be collected through an income tax, excise taxes, fuel taxes, whatever, it is pretty much a given that someone with a million acres would spend more and pay more taxes than someone on a 75X150 lot, just taking care of the place, and it is far more likely they would be producing food, minerals, oil, coal, timber, or any of a host of other products on their land--all of which at some point would be taxed. So the assumption they they wouldn't be paying their "fair share" is bogus.
If there was no property tax we would be back to the privileged few owning all the land and serfdom.
...it remains in the interest of everyone that their landholding be protected as part of the overall jurisdiction. Would you tax those closer to borders more, because their land is more expensive to protect than Indiana or Iowa?
Invading armies don't stop at the borders, they go all the way. Everyone should pay the same rate per acre. If a person owns a million acres, then he has incentives to make good use of the land or he can sell it to someone who can make better use of it than he can. With no property tax, then why develop it, he could squat on it for the rest of his life if he had an alternative income. The left could buy up all the private property and then make it off-limits to everyone, farmers, hunters, what have you.
One of the few Constitutional tasks the Government is required to do (and has done without an acreage tax) is to provide for the common defense.
I despise the taxing of building and structures. It limits growth. May the person who best can develop the land own the land.
Whether taxes be collected through an income tax, excise taxes, fuel taxes, whatever, it is pretty much a given that someone with a million acres would spend more and pay more taxes than someone on a 75X150 lot, just taking care of the place, and it is far more likely they would be producing food, minerals, oil, coal, timber, or any of a host of other products on their land--all of which at some point would be taxed. So the assumption they they wouldn't be paying their "fair share" is bogus.
The left had a campaign in the late 80s of buying land in Costa Rica and South America and not allowing the land to be developed. They would do the same here. Sean Penn and his pals would own half of Wyoming and make it off-limits. We would get no economic gain from the land and on top of that we would pay taxes to the Federal Government to provide the military defense of his utopia.