There is nothing intrinsic about property that implies cast.

I think you are confusing property and scarcity.

> Property ownership comes at a cost.

Sort-of. Typically there is a cost associated with getting rights over a property, either by manufacturing, or in the case of land, by purchase or through the efforts of settling. However, once you have ownership of a property, it's usually relatively cheap to continue own (except, I suppose, if you consider the risk of a communist revolution or something).

This is esentially how the British monarchy earns their generous sums of money. They stole land from the Brits during the Norman conquest about 1000 years ago, and now they rent it back to them for a handsome profit (though the whole thing is rather complicated now and they only get a portion of the money).

In California you pay ~1.5% in property taxes per year. Owning property is not cheap.

In fact you never really own it.

Unless you're a golf course in LA, and cajole a permanent exemption!

I'm a brit who was only discouraged from the process of becoming a American (when much younger and on a terrific upwards trajectory which crazy events eventually skewered) and I would be hurt particularly by property tax now and actually the moment my income ceased growing.

I can't remember if Florida doesn't have property tax and that then may explain why so many of my family retired there, but everywhere I wanted to live did.

If that's all that's keeping you back, you should check if the city/state you wish to live in has what's usually called a homestead exemption. Many places will reduce property tax if you meet a few criteria. The criteria varies, but it usually revolves around being on a fixed income and living on the property.

Florida has property tax, but they don't have an estate tax, which probably influences people to retire there...

For information your property tax (council tax) for the most expensive house in Central London can be less than an average 4 bed house in a mid ranked US state.

>In this case there is no cost to the individual, only to the group.

So like all the externalities and their associated costs that capitalism throws at us without a single care...

Capitalism is compatible with Pigouvian taxes.

Yes, just not in practice, as capitalists amassing wealth can then buy legislation that suits them.

We end up with a few token Pigouvian taxes (when they're not ordered by businesses themselves and used to hurt competition).