Exactly this. We all would love to be perpetual rent-seekers but it just doesn't work for a proper society. Not to mention land is a finite resource.

It's less about land availability. There is plenty of land at least in some countries. It's more about desirability. As those in the real estate trade like to say it's all about "location, location, location."

Which conflates "contribution to society" with "economic value."

Paying taxes is literally contributing to society. Owning land is not.

There are other things that are contributing to society that are not paying taxes.

And for that theoretical tiny category there are tax deductions and other exceptions to the law (for instance in many jurisdictions sites of religious worship are exempt from property tax). The overwhelming majority of owners do not and should not qualify for this.

What eternal wealth would a guy in a hut in the middle of a land-locked forest have, with no infrastructure, and no community? Why is he forced to provide anything beyond self-sustainability?

> pay up regularly or let someone else who will contribute to society [raze your forest to sell wood chips].

Forcing mountain men off their land to work in the factories, sounds plenty dystopian to me. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race…