> taxing people on income is much fairer - by definition as you income goes up, you can afford to pay more It's fairer in that sense, but it's not fairer in th

> taxing people on income is much fairer - by definition as you income goes up, you can afford to pay more It's fairer in that sense, but it's not fairer in the sense of who gets the benefits from the taxes. Suppose the government constructs a transit line from income taxes. Then, the property values (and rents) near the transit line go up. So the renters in that neighbourhood essentially end up paying twice: once through their income taxes, and once through the increase in the rents they pay. On the other hand, the landowners (both landlords and owner-occupiers) essentially get "free" wealth. That doesn't seem very fair to me. Fundamentally, property values go up when the neighbourhood becomes more desirable. But the desirability comes from the actions of the community as a whole, not just the landowner. Property tax is a way for the community as a whole to reclaim (some of) the wealth that comes from that desirability. > but a person living in their only house shouldn't be forced to sell it just because it went up in value. There's a relatively easy fix for that: allow them to defer the property tax to death or when they sell the property. So they still get to live there, but when they leave, they can pay for the taxes from the profits from the sale. If we think that it's unacceptable for people to have to pay extra for when their house goes up in value, why do we think it's acceptable for them to profit from it?