You aren't permanently consuming a portion of the most important finite resource in a state (the land) by buying a cell phone or a sports car. You're certainly taking advantage of public resources and services on a global scale with those other purchases, which I also think is worth addressing. But in the case of land ownership the correlation is very local and easy to draw.
But it's not easy to draw the correlation between land usage and state resource usage. There is basically none because land doesn't use resources. People do.
Your argument confuses cause and effect. People that gain large benefits from the state do so because they are rich. And because they are rich they can afford expensive land.
The "land doesn't use resources" argument seems a bit out of nowhere, because we've been talking about people the whole time here - people's ownership of land. That's also why I mentioned valuable land and not large land. Land derives its value from proximity to other valuable things, and will be developed more densely the more desirable it is in that regard, putting proportional strain on public services and resources like utilities, roads, policing, etc. There's a clear cause and effect here in terms of land value and incentive to develop, and it's an advantageous route for taxation because it would be difficult to game.
