This can be fixed somewhat by excluding primary residence from such taxes (essentially a tax-free allowance of 1). This cuts at hoarding real estate as investment, is a nice extra tax on people buying second homes, and doesn't (directly) affect 99% of homeowners who only ever own one house.
I'm not sure I support land taxes etc. but this at least deals with your objection.
So the people who live in an area shouldn't be the ones paying the taxes to support the area?
Someone else should pay the taxes for them?
Either your tax would come entirely from income - huge handout to homeowners / cost to non-homeonwers - regressive. OR your sales tax would be so crushing that no one would ever buy anything in your community.
If it’s sarcasm I detect in your otherwise fine post, it doesn’t add to the content.
There are many ways to fund the local area. UK has explicit “council tax”, based on property value, but not as a fixed percentage, rather more linked to the percentage of the house value - so your tax bill doesn’t double just because other peoples houses appreciated. These are paid for all houses, and go to the local government. I think this is indeed one of the main sources of income for local councils.
But for example for capital gains tax, which goes fully to the central government, primary residence is excluded.
This means that people buying property as investments end up paying CGT but not ordinary house owners. If investment properties are rented out, it is the renters that pay council tax, as the actual inhabitants of the properties.
There are so many ways to skin a rabbit with taxes, you could tailor it pretty well to discriminate between homeowners and investors.
I'm not sure I support land taxes etc. but this at least deals with your objection.