I'm trying to think through the effects of a Georgian tax system, where the levy is based on "the value of the land". But in my conception, that's either very small, or it actually includes improvement value (and improvements on neighboring land). The entire value of land is how it's used, I think.
Relatedly, land (and capital generally) is a stock, and taxes are generally a flow. The proposal seems not to be a one-time tax to just take the land value from current owners and then let future owners enjoy the (unfair) gains, so it's something like "imputed rent" or "this year's expected proceeds from using just the land with no labor or improvements". I'm unsure how the former isn't including improvements and usage, nor how the latter isn't close to zero.
Are there any examples of how much to tax a few properties in a real (or real-ish) example? Feel free to specify two small apartment buildings with given (but varying over time) end-user rents, vacancy rates, age of building, etc. What part of their actual net profit is due to land value? Likewise for a homeowner with 1/10 acre and an assessed value of $500k (split evenly for tax and insurance purposes between land and house, but actual replacement cost for the house closer to $400k, and Zillow says the value should be closer to $650k).
I just thought I'd comment that plenty of places do in fact tax land value alone, and not improvements. For example, my region has a state government Land Tax at an average of 1.5% of unimproved land value (with exceptions for especially low land values and owners who live on their property).
There are local council charges ("rates") based on improved value of property, but those are (at least in theory) for services provided by the council. The costs of the services are apportioned by property values and classification and other factors as a proxy for things that are more difficult to measure, and it is not a land tax in anything like the Georgist sense.