Lars here. I run the Center for Land Economics with Greg (we wrote the OP blog post). We are not maximalist single taxers.

Henry George was obviously a Single Taxer, but "Georgism" has a generally broader meaning than that. Some Georgists are single taxers, but not all, including Greg and I.

When we talk to elected officials, we don't even talk about Henry George all that much (I did in the ACX article series because it all started with the progress and poverty book review). We mostly speak of "Land value return" and our focus is mostly on pragmatic revenue neutral tax shifts to LVT.

And where do they advocate wholesale adoption of Georgeism? You can like one part of a theory without adopting it all.

That would be income tax

Cool, but just bringing up Georgism doesn't mean the commenter wants to go all-in full Georgist. People can agree with part of a philosophy and not all of it. But we don't know, so we should assume good faith, read the comment charitably (per HN guidelines), and argue against what the commenter actually said, not what we might assume they believe.

I don't know what degree "fixing" means.

You can tax certain things a certain amount and you get diminishing returns. For example, if you had a 50% wealth tax, it would stop collecting anything pretty quickly and would cause pretty big economic disruption.

Land value tax has the potential to collect a lot of money with less disruption.

There's like $20 trillion worth of capitalized land value in the USA. That could mean like $1 trillion a year on-going assuming 5% discounting. Land rent is a perpetual stream of wealth.

There's only $8 trillion billionaire wealth. So already 5%/year would be less. And there's a huge incentive and ability to avoid it by moving.

And I rarely ever even hear suggestions for wealth tax rates around 5%. So then if you had a wealth tax, well land is wealth, and you'd be leaving a ton on the table as you could still have the land value tax at 5% of the capitalized value.

That money could be spent on public services that poorer people will benefit from more like transit, schools, or even local hospitals and subsidized healthcare. A typical point by LVT supporters here is that these services have the impact of raising land rents.

Most taxes have this dynamic:

tax -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rents go up -> land owners benefit

LVT has this dynamic:

Tax land -> invest in public services poor people use -> land rent goes up -> tax land more so land owners don't benefit

Landlords, developers, builders etc. should earn the return on the constructed housing, not the land.