Land ownership is registered for good public purposes which does not unreasonably destroy privacy concerns - it's usually obvious who (person or business) controls the land anyway (who should a tenant pay the rent to? who gets to decide if you can be a tenant?) and it gives people a great deal of confidence that they know that whoever is recorded in the government land registry as having a right to sell the property actually has that right. The common law approach of having to hold a series of documents that identify a continuous line of owners going back to some unconfirmable initial grant by a long dead king is not in the interest of the purchaser of the land.
Moreover, the market distortions taxing land (as the primary source of government income) will have are generally positive. A person can no longer buy a house in the hope that the land it sits on will double in value. They can only buy a house in the hope that they are capable of making a profit out of it; the land purchase merely gives them the right to improve it.
The same advantages may be visible for taxation of share holdings: instead of simply trying to profit from someone else's actions, you would buy shares because you think the dividends will exceed other income sources for the same purchase. It may be legitimate to have anonymous share holdings which require active detective work, so it's possible this would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
I know I've said that we shouldn't do public policy by taxes but taxing wealth instead of income probably isn't easy. We can tax income because one person's income is another person's expense if I understand how this works.
Reminds me of annecdote of old tax policies on things like silverware and the difficulty in believing and searches from one austere preacher who anomalously for his station didn't own a single set. And others like the tax on windows which lead to boarding up of windows in slums and became derided as a tax on light and air.
The answer seems to be that how well it works varies heavily on what the asset.
"it's usually obvious who (person or business) controls the land anyway"
That's really not the case if the asset is owned by an opaque offshore company or trust - it's then pretty much impossible to know who the beneficial owner actually is.
You can make use of Adverse Possession to take ownership of land. The owner must reclaim their property, (and prove their ownership) or loose all rights to it. Unfortunately in UK squatting in a residential property is a crime, amusingly adverse possession still applies - you could claim someone's house but go to jail.
It's a weak threat though, most luxury apartment blocks used for 'investment' have security, you need to reside continuously for 10 years, they will send the owner a letter, etc.
I would like to see the principle of 'use it or lose-it' for limited public goods like land.
Land ownership is registered for good public purposes which does not unreasonably destroy privacy concerns - it's usually obvious who (person or business) controls the land anyway (who should a tenant pay the rent to? who gets to decide if you can be a tenant?) and it gives people a great deal of confidence that they know that whoever is recorded in the government land registry as having a right to sell the property actually has that right. The common law approach of having to hold a series of documents that identify a continuous line of owners going back to some unconfirmable initial grant by a long dead king is not in the interest of the purchaser of the land.
Moreover, the market distortions taxing land (as the primary source of government income) will have are generally positive. A person can no longer buy a house in the hope that the land it sits on will double in value. They can only buy a house in the hope that they are capable of making a profit out of it; the land purchase merely gives them the right to improve it.
The same advantages may be visible for taxation of share holdings: instead of simply trying to profit from someone else's actions, you would buy shares because you think the dividends will exceed other income sources for the same purchase. It may be legitimate to have anonymous share holdings which require active detective work, so it's possible this would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.