[neilparikh]

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.

[scarface74]

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.....

[harryh]

I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....

Property taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes that exist. They are an excellent way to fund the government.

[scarface74]

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.

[harryh]

Because they don't discourage otherwise positive economic activity.

[scarface74]

Do you feel the same way about the government taking private property via eminent domain to build a Walmart?

[harryh]

No.