All possessions are property. Today's property taxes include structures. A better tax would be to tax just the acreage.
Stuff the tax. You buy the land, it should be yours, not rented from the Government.
The government spends money to protect your land from foreign invasion, and should be compensated for it.
There are plenty of other ways for the government to raise money...
Tariffs and sales taxes are anti-growth. Income and acreage should be the two main taxes.
Less government is the goal.
Knocking tax collection to the four ways I mentioned would massively rein in the government.
Tariffs are empowered by the Constitution. It took an Amendment to dip into income.
But you'd tax the person living in a tarpaper shack on twenty acres of swampland more than someone living in a McMansion on an acre and a half next to a golf course?
No.
Where I live an acreage tax is like taxing a manufacturing plant for the machines it owns.
Land is part of the means of production. Wheat farms here commonly run 5,000 acres or more, ranching operations get larger.
Maybe you think obesity really is a problem, because what you propose will make food prices go up.
Maybe you don't own much land, maybe you don't need to, or you would see this is just as severe of a damper on productivity as taxing automakers by the wrench.
What productivity? Food. Timber. Oil and Gas, coal, even the ethanol sold as being so bloody "green", all require land. Even the processed pulpwood you wipe with takes land.
As much labor and investment go into tilled fields over a few decades as a housing development, you just don't see it if you don't know what you are looking at--and sales taxes, fuel taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, etc. are all paid on that investment.
I remain dead set against taxing real property (land), especially to 'protect it', because the only enforcement mechanism is confiscation of that land. What is the greater threat, invasion by hostile Canadians or having the land seized by our own Government? (Hint: My wife's people once owned over 10,000,000 acres. The reason the government used to confiscate all but 1280 of those acres was "back taxes".)
So put your acreage tax where it will filter out in the drainfield.
Most of what is considered "income" is just what I get in exchange for my time and labor. It's an exchange, not a profit.
Tax either too much, and there won't be either the products of the land nor of labor.
At least with a sales tax, you are taxed on what you buy--as with tariffs, which were classically reserved for luxury items.
What's yours should be yours. Period.
The government spends money to protect your land from foreign invasion, and should be compensated for it.
The government spends more money telling me what I can and can't do with my land than it does protecting it against foreign invasion.
With the sh*tty job along the southern border, they should be issuing checks.
40,000,000 people isn't an invasion? Why do I hear spanish (mexican) spoken in WalMart? In North Dakota?
The chief expenses of government come from filling their own pockets and filling the great teat, and taxing the rest of us for the privilege of picking up the tab.
Wean the population--they can't suckle forever--especially the able-bodied.
One more thing:
One of the goals of the Socialists and of the Agenda 21 folks is getting people off of privately owned land, and herded into the cities where they are more easily controlled. Maybe you like those ideas. But I have found land under the careful stewardship of private owners seems to do better (be more productive) than land overseen by flunkies who are just there for a paycheck.
The Federal Government already owns over half of the land west of the Mississippi. Maybe it could have a sale and return some of that land to productivity instead of taxing the land of those who are productive.