[throwanem]

Perhaps you are motivated not to reason. Forecasting growth rates of revenue from improvement, versus property tax apparently aka "land rent," and observing the possibility exists that one will grow faster than the other especially since many improvements generate no revenue at all, requires not all that much effort. But I had no idea you people were mad enough to argue seriously this should be the only tax of any kind anywhere. Excuse me.

[sagarm]

Taxing land ownership reduces returns on land ownership, making consolidation less rather than more likely. Wasn't that your main concern?

And yes, the amount of money to spend and how that money are collected are separate political questions. LVT is just about funding sources. Most Georgists are also for "pigouvian" taxes and taxing negative externalities.

[throwanem]

How does reducing returns on land ownership make consolidation less likely, when improvement revenue looks to scale more or less proportionately - and superlinearly - with the area of contiguous property owned?

If you buy a storefront, you can run a shop. If you buy the block, you can build a skyscraper and lease or rent out all the retail space, not to mention the apartments under the condos under the penthouses, all of which also make you money, of course.

But again and still, we see Georgianism as the "camel's nose" for a complete overhaul of the economic and fiscal underpinnings of American society, and while this is a good time for such conversations - everyone else is coming off the fringe! Why not the remaining L. Neil Smith fans, once they've got their trusses and orthotics all in order? - for generally similar reasons I wouldn't expect to encounter a tremendously credulous public.