A wealth ceiling would make the use of property more efficient

A property, or wealth, ceiling would have the advantages of (derived from) making sure that resources are being used efficiently. This means that when someone has above a certain threshold of property, they will not be permitted to obtain more. Further acquisitions will not be recognised and existing property above that level will be repossessed. This means that people are able to only be wealthy up to a certain point. People are prevented from hoarding assets and (thereby, in doing so) preventing the use by others who would derive greater value from them.

The nature of resources and (exclusive) property ownership means that, via rent, landlords are able to accumulate property almost unhindered, when (provided that) their rental income exceeds their cost of living. The extra income can be used to purchase more properties which, in turn may be leased out. Without a check on this process, those with property may accumulate more and more, to the detriment of the Society they are living in.

A wealth cap, or ceiling would provide a good means to ensure that the Society is not hindered by the accumulation of wealth and property by individuals so that resources can be better utilised by the rest.

We have a right to impose a land tax

Access to land is a natural right, assuming it is relatively plentiful and so to impose a tax on having too much land is not aggressive. It is legitimate to impose an inequality tax on those who have not left enough land for others. We have a right to remove people from owning land which excessively prevents others from access to land which is their natural right. If land is a natural right, then we must have the right to remove people, or to impose a tax. We have a right to impose a tax on people who have taken more land than adequately leaves enough for others.

What is our compensation for respecting property rights?

Is there a reason to accept that the current, pertaining arrangement of property ownership is equitable? We normally grant property rights when they are reciprocated; we consent not to harm others, if we ourselves will not be harmed. With land, we consent to stay and remain away from the property of others but are we being reciprocated proportionately?

If we have not been granted a sufficiency of land then is it acceptable that we are expected to respect the property rights of others? In what sense can the person who is ejected from the property and land retaliate? And if there is not equitable means to retaliate then in what sense are the existing rights legitimate?