Friedman and Stiglitz yes, but they are not very recent (in terms of when they produced their main work) but for the others Tyler Cowen [0]: So I take the Geo

Friedman and Stiglitz yes, but they are not very recent (in terms of when they produced their main work) but for the others Tyler Cowen [0]: So I take the Georgist view to imply two claims. First, it is easier or better to tax barebones land than barebones labor. Second, taxing a factor directly is much better than taxing complements of that factor. Since I am not convinced either of these are true, I hold no particular attachment to the idea of a single tax on land Paul Krugman [1]: "Believe it or not, urban economics models actually do suggest that Georgist taxation would be the right approach at least to finance city growth. But I would just say: I don’t think you can raise nearly enough money to run a modern welfare state by taxing land [only]." >I have no idea where you are getting your misconceptions from. I'm pretty sure you are getting yours from Wikipedia. [0] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/02/why_are_land_ta.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/02/why... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax