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.
Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.
What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.
If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread. You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions. You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage. The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office.
Time for me to say "Peace - out."