[bitserf]

Yeah, just because one tiny fraction edge case might be affected, we should do absolutely nothing. The status quo of land ownership being an enabler of a rentier class pales in significance to the plight of subsistence farmers, which I have a hard time believing exist in any substantial number in developed countries.

It's not like we could define classes of protected persons to balance out such effects?

But no, it's better to do absolutely nothing on the off chance someone, somewhere might be negatively affected in the next millennium.

Better the devil we know, right? No matter the imbalance and injustice to society, property rights and protection of capital derived from ownership, are sacrosanct.

I hear this argument all the time, and without fail it's a Boomer who benefited from massive capital gains, or someone who bought when it was low. The Fuck You, Got Mine crowd.

FWIW, I'm a homeowner, so in theory if I didn't care that we're creating a disenfranchised group on a massive scale, I should be against such a tax.

But don't come here and pretend you really care at all about this contrived population of people who would suffer unduly.