In that case wouldn't these companies go remote and keep just a PO box around?

Then they'll be taxed where they end up but ultimately they'll stay because of the services and talent attracted to the services that tax revenue affords.

Pretty easy for the 0.1% to avoid owning much domestic land though, unless their wealth comes mainly from real estate or primary resource extraction...

So what? If they own property that doesn't have anything to do with the country, it doesn't need maintaining roads and infrastructure (which is the tax is for in theory).

Real estate property based taxation has a long history of supporters as the most fair tax there is.

Wat? Only a small portion of services are related to land. Property tax is in fact usually considered quite regressive and hardly "the most fair tax there is."

The two biggest expenses, territorial defense and domestic infrastructure, are directly related to land. The other two big ones, administration of justice (courts) and protection of international commerce (navy) either are closely enough connected to land property or have their own revenue generation mechanisms.

LVT is the optimal tax (no deadweight loss). Property tax has issues because it taxes improvements, but we probably want improvements.

Both of them are very unpopular with the people who have to pay them, because they force you to find productivity increases and you might be a retiree. Or just a landlord who refuses to develop an empty lot in the middle of a city.

* * *

If it were that easy they'd do it.

You make more money with a bunch of nickle and dime taxes. 20% to the feds, 10% to the state. 5% sales, 1% property, a litany of $10-1000 fees for interacting with government, etc, etc than you do with a single big tax that is easy to rally against even if the nickle and dime solution is lossy.

You make the most revenue with a giant VAT like Europe has. After that it's income/payroll tax probably.

What about land that’s owned by a trust in another country? Land is extremely easy and reliable way to hide money, that’s why wealthy Chinese are so well known for buying up property in the US and Canada.

The land records are held by a local authority who charges a taxes on the land. If the taxes aren't being paid, the land is sold at auction, and the new owner is responsible for the back taxes. Even if you don't always know exactly who is behind a given trust, you can always collect the taxes or reclaim the land. The wealth may be hidden from the Chinese government, and the local authority may not be certain who the owner actually is, but tax evasion is avoided.

What is the point of the Westphalian Nation-state if land within its borders can be owned in trust by foreign nation[al]s?

That's why the Westphalian nation-state is in a state of permanent crisis: unbridled globalization broke it.

Does that incentivize not buying land? I wonder if people will just prefer subscribing to everything with a long term bundle. I mean, rent and rent-like situations

Only the big, powerful, faceless individuals — corporations — will own land.

Is this plausible? I’m just winging it here :)

It's the opposite; it increases the percentage of owner occupiers. It reduces landlord/renters; see for example https://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenan... or https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Prospe...

Most proposals for land value tax are also revenue neutral, so you essentially pay rent to society/government for the land you use, but keep more of your income.