Tax asset appreciation like regular income. The tax burden should fall on those most able to bear it, and should fall as equitably as possible. The current approach encourages people to accumulate assets and rent them out rather than producing things others want to consume.

Although astazangasta is complaining about rent, he doesn't actually want to buy land either. He thinks he is entitled to free land.

Native Americans iirc thrived without the concept of "privatized land" for thousands of years. Same for basically other self-sustaining native population in history.

Okay, you got the occasional clashes with other clans for land but hey, you could always move somewhere else. That's impossible now, given the massive numbers of humans on this planet.

Sorry, that is not correct.

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/aztec/aztec_property....

I doubt there's ever been an urban culture that didn't have some concept of property ownership, whether by individuals, "nobles", or the state.

Depends on the particular geographic area you're talking about. In the Northeast, for example, land rights were radically different from the Aztecs.

That said, it was never as simple as "everyone holds land in common and can do whatever they want with it individually."

Were there urban cultures in the Northeast? The largest I've heard of seem more like "towns" than "cities".

There were full-scale cities in the Midwest and South, of course, but I don't think we know enough about those cultures to say what their property rights were like. I'd bet money they were a lot closer to the Aztecs than to a typical hunter-gatherer band, though.

The Tlingit of the Northwest also had a complicated system of property rights, including something akin to what we call "intellectual property" (though there were significant differences to our system). They also kept large numbers of slaves.