This idea is pretty hard to square with economic incentives for infrastructure development. If the state builds a freeway or a fire station or other development, one major effect is that it enables a lot of valuable economic development. For public goods, it's hard to capture that value - even though it makes society better off, it's not worthwhile for any one economic actor to do it.

Property taxes (specifically on the unimproved value of the land) offers a way out of this dilemma. If you can do more valuable economic activity with a piece of land, you can and should pay more for it, so it'll be worth more. So if you spend $10MM/yr in financing for building a bridge, and it increases land value in the catchment area by $100MM, and you have a 12% land-value tax, the state responsible makes more money.

Why should society subsidize someone using a piece of land, when another potential tenant will pay taxes on its true value? The government has to fund itself, so a reduction in property taxes means increases in other taxes. If the replacement taxes apply to everyone equally, that means wealth is effectively being transferred from average people (who are likely in debt with little savings) to people who completely own homes often worth 800k+.

The old person will make a good amount of money selling their home, and they can use that windfall to buy a nice new home somewhere warm and cheap, so it isn't like they're being trampled on.

>The old person will make a good amount of money selling their home, and they can use that windfall to buy a nice new home somewhere warm and cheap, so it isn't like they're being trampled on.

It deconstructs communities.

This land is too valuable to allow you people to squat on it. We'll compensate you, so it's all fine and fair, now get out.

It's not hard to understand why people don't like being treated that way.

> Why should society subsidize someone using a piece of land, when another potential tenant will pay taxes on its true value?

Subsidize? I think your concept of private property rights is under developed.

They're subsidized by building infrastructure. If the state builds a bridge that allows a homeowner in town A to commute to work to town B, this directly increases the land value in town A. The state paid for this bridge, not the homeowner. This is what the subsidy is - having access to state-provided infrastructure by virtue of location. Why should the homeowner have exclusive right to that increase in land value?

This is the gigantic pitfall of overly-individualistic property rights - that socially beneficial infrastructure development doesn't happen, because nobody has the power to siphon off enough of the value created to make it worth doing.