It’s not a very fair system if only certain participants can afford to avoid taxes. If these schemes were doable for most folks and not only the very rich then no one would have an issue with the system (assuming that it provided enough revenue).
Real estate property based taxation has a long history of supporters as the most fair tax there is.
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.
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.
Only the big, powerful, faceless individuals — corporations — will own land.
Is this plausible? I’m just winging it here :)
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.