Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.
Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent. If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.
I see no reason for the state to own 28% of the land. If the government needs money, it can sell its land. To my mind this is a major benefit of a property/resource tax - thanks for bringing it up.
Since tax is raised to meet a budget, no matter what tax you choose, the same amount of money gets raised. Sales tax is more expensive to administer than a resource/property tax and it requires a ton of regulation and bureaucrats. You can see why the property/resource tax option is most popular here :-)