[AdrianB1]

I see the point, but I don't see what is wrong with that, and I am relatively poor person. I see calls for equality all over the place, but nobody wants to be equal, especially not in taxation - a fix amount (not percent of something) sum per citizen is equal and nobody wants it. Equal rights, equal taxes, equal obligations, no exceptions - be it financial, demographic, military, etc.

[iamnothere]

A Georgist-style land value tax (LVT) is fairer and has the added benefit of ending land speculation, a practice that leads to distortions in the housing market and harmful property boom-bust cycles.

[AdrianB1]

That is basically removing property rights, when the land is not yours but you just rent it ... you will own nothing and be happy.

[iamnothere]

You didn’t make the land (nobody did). LVT is the “least bad” tax because in an LVT-exclusive system you are not taxed on your labor, your inventions, or your possessions. You’re only taxed for your exclusive use of a common resource (land).

You may be opposed to all taxes, but if you acknowledge the need for some kind of tax, it at least has some kind of rational and seemingly fair justification.

[AdrianB1]

You bought the land, so it is yours, right?

Yes, I am fine with taxes, but not with any type of tax, not property taxes (it is bought with money already taxed) and not with taxes as punishment or taxes as political games. I am opposed to taxes as a purpose, I am for taxes as a means to pay for some universal services that you cannot pay by consumption.

[iamnothere]

Land is a category of thing that isn’t always straightforward. All land borders other land. Land has more land underneath it and sky above it. Water runs both into it and out of it, and often that water is crucial to neighbors. It has been there before you and will be there after you. Land as an aggregate defines a nation of laws and men. Land can be on a national border.

This is why there’s so many complicated rules around land, it doesn’t fit neatly into a defined yours-or-mine category.

Georgism allows exclusive use of land—ideally without restriction unless it affects neighbors through pollution—it just asks that landowners pay for that exclusivity on an ongoing basis. If they no longer wish to pay, or no longer can pay, then the market can allocate that land to someone who will pay. It’s a pro-development system that calls for increasingly limited land to be put to economic use, unless that land just isn’t very useful/valuable.

[AdrianB1]

First you are deflecting and going in discussions about points that were never made, then you keep preaching a system where you don't have property rights under the nice "think of the children" pretext that it is a "pro-development". Basic communist argument of the greater good against the individual.