This question is inspired by this other question also on Politics SE.
My understanding of the way US law works (or in fact most property law in most of the developed world) is that, for various reasons, when a person owns real estate, that person does not, in fact, own the land on which the real estate is built; rather, they own some kind of a lease agreement or something which provides that person the right to build things on that land and do things on that land freely so long as the lease agreement is in place. The other party in the lease agreement is the government.
The effect of this is that it provides the government the right to effectively "take your land" if they want to. In practice, this means that if the government wants to, for example, build a road through your house, they will give you some money of proportionate value to your house (there are laws, I believe, which prevent the government from wholesale repossession of your house; they have to give you something for it), and knock down your house, and build the road, and there's not a heck of a lot you can do about it, because they're the lease owner and you're the tenant.
Here's the question: Let's say the government proposed a tax as suggested in the linked question. Would that mean that the government would cede the right to require you to vacate the premises of your house if the government wanted to repossess the land, because you own the land and the government can't repossess something they do not own? In such a case, what would happen if the government wanted to build a road through one's house, and that person just said "no thanks I want to stay here"?