The restriction to own land is a way to limit voting to folks that have the EXPERIENCE of managing money successfully (even simply on a family level). It is kinda like letting the mature chickens be in charge of the hen house... rather than the rooster or the fox.
Now perhaps land ownership may or may not be the best route... however lets think of a solution where only folks who have learned how to manage $$$ (writing/following a budget, having savings, planning ahead, etc) choose the folks who make the rules which govern how taxation is accomplished and how tax $$$ is spent. Can you see the difference between someone who has lived with a silver spoon in their mouth (always had more $$$ than they needed) OR a person who has learned to live within a budget and save for rainy days... making fiscal policy. Seems simple to me.
There is nothing wrong with folks having to work to eat... and the churches took care of charity more than adequately before the govt took over.
There is something about earning one's living that grows a person from a spoiled child to a contributing/society adult. If we took away the endless safety nets folks would go back to work and that maturing process would take hold of America. The only loosers would be losers and polecats... I think we can let them slide... what do you think?