I don't disagree with any of the analysis and there may be some justification in the complaints, but trying to draw a distinction between active and passive capital would led to horrendous complications. A better usggestion is to follow the American example of mandating that the rich pay a certain percentage of their income no matter what - and no matter what deductions they may claim..

Not completely technically true.Japan in particular have recalimed the oceans and generated realstate.

In NSW Govt taxes and charges on a house land package amounts to 39%.We now have a shortage of housing.It is now not viable for private individuals to build houses.Reduce taxes,limit the size of Govt and we will be all better off.

Tax does not bring about equality,it just makes Govt Depts grow.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) offered the following
observation several years ago:

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it.

You can get Labor politicians to agree that capital gains tax is fair and that negative gearing is regressive, but they say - or at least one did - "We can't do anything about these because we would be slaughtered." Too many 'little people' now have an interest, however small, and will not see that in the long term, the bigger people benefit at their expense.

Whenever the government does anything about infrastructure or planning, the public pay the costs and the speculators benefit.
Speculators also have an interest in unstoppable population growth, in order to continually increase the value of land and housing.
In a more equitable society, money circulates round and round to provide goods and services for all, rather than ending up in sinks, to benefit a few.

It is unfair to farmers and a poor thing in the long run when their rates go up so high with changes in planning zones that they have to sell their fertile land for housing; but otherwise, fairer than the present situation would be to treat the land as 'owned by the people' for the profit of the public, to the degree that no human has made it, and tax those who own the titles as if the tax was rent paid to the public. Steps already made towards this can be improved.