It would be a fair way to fund socialized medical care, as almost all medical care is provided to locals.  Care is mostly rationed today on a large scale based on the wealth of the local area so very little would change other than cutting out many extremely wealthy and politically influential middlemen like insurance companies.  People who hate the moral and ethical idea of pooled medical costs could trivially move into the wilderness where there&#x27;s unfortunately no medical care at all other than long ambulance rides, therefore the prop tax paid to the local medical offices (which don&#x27;t exist) would be quite low, which is kind of a self correcting problem.  Much as we have &quot;over 55 only&quot; communities for places that refuse to fund elementary schools.<p>The biggest problem with prop tax is the general social aversion to kicking people off &quot;their&quot; land.  As if any land is truly privately owned, LOL, and the government messing with the rent is going to shine quite a bright light on that little social problem.  You&#x27;d need some kind of plan to deal with temporarily un and under employed vs permanently un and under employed landowners, not to mention enormous numbers of homeless elderly retired people.