When most people think about paying for Government services, they believe this should be based upon the ability to pay. This contradicts what we think is fair when paying for private goods and services. Why the difference?
I believe it is to due the mistaken belief we pay compensation to the Government for the services it provides. The poor therefore need subsiding by the rich.
The correct view is we pay (or should pay) compensation to the community for benefits we receive from it. Out of which, how we best divvy up the proceeds is a separate topic. Take note faux-Libs.
We earn an income, then buy capital, which benefits everyone. Unlike income and capital, Land, by definition, is not reproducible. Exclusive occupation of productive Land is therefore the main* burden we place upon the community. It is the permission to exclude others that is the benefit we should be paying for. Measured by the market, as the rental value of Land.
It is not therefore a "tax" but a user fee. Which perfectly aligns with the same incentives as drives the rest of our economy. And, joyfully, we get a fair distribution of income, capital and welfare (in the economic sense) as a result.
At its base, Capitalism is all about paying market based compensation. It works because it is fair. When we apply this to landownership, and other negative externalities, we get a fair and efficient way of paying for services we share.
* other burdens, or negative externalities, include State granted monopoly rights, and pollution.