In classical economics (which I believe in [0]), land is a commodity like any other. There is literally no fundamental difference between land and anything els

In classical economics (which I believe in [0]), land is a commodity like any other. There is literally no fundamental difference between land and anything else. Georgists might say that there is no substitute for land, but that is not an important issue unless one person has a monopoly on all land, which is not the case and never will be. So land tax is just a very strange kind of wealth tax. The only effect of land tax would be that the price of properties would go down to account for the future taxes paid on those properties. After that, the taxes would be "priced in" and the tax wouldn't even operate as a wealth tax. I think land tax is only appealing to people who don't understand income tax (and proper wealth taxes). They have been tricked (by obfuscation from both the left and right) into believing that income and wealth taxes are unable to achieve the goal of meaningful redistribution of wealth. [0] Yes there are frictions, but not relevant to this discussion.