Anyone in this situation can easily take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes and come out way ahead. Your assertion that the higher taxes would force them to move is wrong.
These 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. Land is an exclusionary good; you using it means I can't. Equity is non-exclusionary. Additionally, the city has to provide services to owners of land, which requires money. The government has no such obligation to owners of equity.
Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there.
The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land?
I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....
How are they "economically efficient"? It doesn't cost anymore to serve someone in a million dollar home than a $200K home. Besides that you get into situations where richer neigborhood have better services, better funded school systems, etc.
This is obvious when you consider the fact that a person who owns a piece of property outright pays the same property tax as someone who owns a similar piece of property but carries a mortgage.
Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?
This is not a good argument. It would be the equivalent of me asking:
Does the trash pickup service, repairing potholes or patrolling the street cost more if the home owner just moved in than if has own the house for 30 years?