Land Value Tax is simply an efficient tax system that minimalises dead weight losses. Yes, Henry George was a big fan of them, but he was just one proponent. LVT does not live and fall with Henry George.
> Borrowing and taxation are completely different concepts. Unless I am the only idiot who hasn't asked for their tax back with interest. Possible.
I am saying that your specific objections to taxing unrealised gains do not apply.
> They aren't poor in that they have at least one valuable asset. The kind of asset that helps people stay afloat when they have issues with income or domestic violence. Regressive taxes are regressive because they simply do not look at income. Someone can be retired, living on nearly no income, and have a single valuable asset. It is not the role of government to significantly disrupt peoples lives because they have 1 good thing going. IIRC home ownership is the single best indicator of mental health.
You are proving too much. Holding down a steady job is also a great indicator of mental health. So the government shouldn't tax your job either? Ie income tax bad?
You have to tax something to run the government.
Btw, you could run a land value tax but give everyone a universal basic income equivalent to the LVT paid by the median person. That means only people who sit on more than the median amount of land (by value) would pay a net tax. Everyone else would see a net income from the system. That would immediately knock out all of your arguments about those poor widows and orphans.
(In taxation and income, medians tend to be lower than averages, so the above system would leave money left over to use for general government revenue. If you want more of that, instead of paying the median amount, you could pay UBI at eg the 20%-ile level. That would still protect those people who only 'have 1 good thing going' from net outflowing payments.)