A key assumption behind property tax is that land in a given location increases in value because that location has become more popular, and thus the owner of popular land is likely in one of two boats: - utilizing the land more intensely thus easily able to pay tax based on value - rich enough not to care

North American zoning breaks this assumption since no matter how popular a given location becomes, it remains illegal to do anything on it except teardown & 1:1 replacement of existing houses. This guarantees that all land rises in value due to scarce floorspace, while simultaneously guaranteeing that most owners of the land won't have the cash to pay property tax.

If you had the freedom to build on your land, this would solve property tax 2 ways: - if you want to build, you can, and in doing so, property tax ceases to be a significant expense - if you don't want to build but others do, their doing so eases the floorspace shortage, so that land doesn't become so expensive

For bonus points, property tax should exempt the value of the structure. There's some logic to the idea that since we cannot directly manufacture land, there's always some public stake in it. But we can directly manufacture floorspace, just like we can manufacture tv's and shoes. We don't tax ownership of tv's & shoes, so it makes sense to exclude floorspace as well.

> We don't tax ownership of tv's & shoes, so it makes sense to exclude floorspace as well.

give it time and that will be taxed too. in more states than not in the US citizens are not only not allowed to own houses but also cars without paying the government a fee every year - the shoes and tvs and kids toys are coming :)