If someone decides to sell then the market determines what a property is worth. If someone doesn’t sell then it’s clearly worth enough to pay the taxes on it.

For a single property it doesn’t give much information, but across a city the market is providing a great deal of information.

> If someone doesn’t sell then it’s clearly worth enough to pay the taxes on it.

That's not a good argument. People don't sell the clothes they have in their closet when they're not using it and it would be laughable to argue for an annual tax on one's closet. Why should this be any different for land? Monetary value isn't the same as worth. There's much more to ownership of land that isn't reflected in "market worth" (however that would be assessed in the cases of purchased land).

> For a single property it doesn’t give much information, but across a city the market is providing a great deal of information.

Cities are few and far between. That wouldn't apply to someone who built a house in the middle of Montana or decided to squat in a ghost town.

It’s easy to assume a dead means you “own” some land, but national borders also define ownership of land by nation states which need things like militaries to defend them but also systems to manage that land such as deed registries, road networks, police and court systems to handle trespassers, and so forth.

Understanding what a deed actually is rather than what it seems like it should help clarify what’s going on here. It’s a landlord setting rent, however governments have more concerns than maximizing revenue.

A government defining what an appropriate rent for land should be has real economic implications for nation states. Under charge and land ends up wasted, charge too much and it ends up abandoned. The sweet spot isn’t about maximizing income it’s about maximizing benefit for society.

Often property taxes are based on total value of the land plus improvements on it which discourages improvements or even maintenance. Thus a sweet spot based on the lands inherent value Aka a land value tax.

In the end land is a finite resource, any nation that wastes it runs into massive problems.

> It’s easy to assume a dead means you “own” some land, but national borders also define ownership of land by nation states which need things like militaries to defend them

For nations, treaties function as the equivalent of deeds and those have enough recognition in and of themselves without paying, say, the UN or some such organization to enforce them on a nation's behalf. That militaries defend their land borders is no different than a well-armed land owner defending the border of his property. In addition, the military isn't funded by property taxes.

> but also systems to manage that land such as deed registries, road networks, police and court systems to handle trespassers, and so forth.

These can all be itemized, and chosen a la carte. Certain states require payment of land registry fees upon purchase of a house. Road networks are paid with gas taxes, and tolls. Police officers are already paid via fines and free money from Washington. Court systems are paid through filing fees and also free money from Washington. Why do I need to pay land/property taxes for a service I'm already charged for either as another tax or as a fee upon use? And if I don't use them, why should I be made a forced rider?

The value (or lack thereof) of these services are distinct from the value of land. Land value shouldn't be determined by people who are in a position or have an incentive to self-deal by threat of force. Either there's an objective value or there isn't. Under any other circumstances, these tactics would be considered racketeering undertaken by mafiosos, but when it comes to government (whether local, state, or federal), the tune changes to deference for the sake of a nebulously defined "society".

> Understanding what a deed actually is rather than what it seems like it should help clarify what’s going on here. It’s a landlord setting rent, however governments have more concerns than maximizing revenue. A government defining what an appropriate rent for land should be has real economic implications for nation states. Under charge and land ends up wasted, charge too much and it ends up abandoned.

I understand what a deed is [1]. My underlying contention is with the dishonest approach of how local governments are able to get the numbers they do and why they do it. I recognize that governments are are essentially Hobbesian fiefdom but I fail to see the need to preach unsubstantiated drivel about "bettering" society or falsely claiming objectivity. It would be easy enough to claim that the value assessed by the municipality has little to do with the market and everything with how much government can get away with charging you. So peddle fantasy?

> The sweet spot isn’t about maximizing income it’s about maximizing benefit for society.

The latter is often the means to the former and both come at the expense of the individual. .

> Often property taxes are based on total value of the land plus improvements on it which discourages improvements or even maintenance. Thus a sweet spot based on the lands inherent value Aka a land value tax.

Then this "sweet spot" isn't based on inherent value if a third party must rely on a subjective valuation.

>In the end land is a finite resource, any nation that wastes it runs into massive problems.

But the who gets to define waste? One could say that national parks are a waste as the land could be put to better use for property development. One could say that most military bases are a waste as the country hasn't fought foreign invaders on American soil since 1815. One could even say that major metropolitan areas are a waste, as they "rob" tax dollars from rural and suburban areas while benefitting from tax regimes (like SALT) that subsize high state-level taxation at expense of other states competing on low cost of living.

Once again, leaving these choices to government usually results in self-dealing. In such a scenario, there is no objective valuation.

[1] Despite what you claim, it's not just a document that exists to recognize the government as rentier. Deeds, like treaties are contracts and they can have all sorts of arrangements. There have been many that still precede the US government and that are still upheld today, some of which even recognize residence in a separate political sovereignty within US borders.

*So why peddle fantasy?

> So peddle fantasy?

Because people believe, look at religion or the prevalence of gambling addiction. Humanity isn’t a collection of rational actors optimizing their long term self interest it’s a collection of fools lead around by the best storytellers.

A dictator who wants to maximize their personal power will peddle fantasy just as quickly as anyone running for office because it works.

> not just a document that exists to recognize the government as rentier

Eminent domain means the government can kick anyone off any property to be sold to the government or private party, the deed holder is compensated but they don’t get to say no. So sure old deeds are respected as much as any of them are, but how is that different than maintaining existing leases when you buy a rental property?

Arguably renters have more rights with respect to their landlords than deed holders with respect to the government.

PS: As to your argument about funding for police etc, states vary wildly in stuff like income taxes and sales taxes but in the end they are simply extracting resources from a productive economy the specific form those taxes take are only really relevant due to knock on effects, money is fungible. Taxing fuel or taxing miles driven only matters when EV’s show up.