that equal and opposite side to the argument should be present also, n'est-ce pas?

Preservation of 'wild zones' every so often, and not taxing too heavily for those who are cash poor, yet land rich. if they are not exploiting their land, it could be saving resources for future generations, why tax present owners for that. do you want them all to have to sell because they can't pay land taxes?

</devil's avocado>

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty