> real estate/rents/leasing is perhaps 15% but most of that is related to the value of buildings, not the value of land.
Not at all clear that most of that is related to the value of the building and also you conveniently neglect to mention that that is the largest share of GDP out of any industry in the world.
Further, land includes a lot more stuff that is not counted in the economic measures you are using. [0]
[0]: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290...
I agree that determining the value of IP is difficult. Georgists would probably advocate that there is no reason for IP to be in private hands in the first place, nor any need for a system of IP.
Alternatively, you could give temporary ownership of the IP to the creator (like we already do, except without the absurd lengths of time), then when that expires, put it up for auction to determine the pricing, then tax based on that.
This might also usher out IP trolls and IP squatters.
What? How?
Maybe it will help to think of "land" as "location" since it is not the actual soil but the location which Georgists keep talking about.
If you are a modern services company you need to have access to large pool of qualified people - which happens to be in big cities. So you need a great location for your office to attract people from this talent pool. Location (aka land) therefore is an important input to your business and you will pay a lot for it.
Second, wealthy people park their money (regardless of origin, good or bad) in real estate. That drives living costs for non wealthy people.
It turns out it is non-wealthy workers who pay taxes which fund infrastructure development which benefits wealthy owners of real estate by increasing value of their property.
Georgists promote reversal of the present day funding scheme from nonwealthy workers to wealthy land owners with money parked in real estate. With the alternative being simple "taxing" of locational value to fund government services with two main outcomes
1. reducing tax burden on workers and small business 2. reducing cost of living (rents) by properly allocating land (mostly city land, not agricultural)
This is not the case any more - only a tiny fraction of our economy is tied to the land, primary production (agriculture/forestry/fishing and mining including oil) is just a few percent of the total economy; real estate/rents/leasing is perhaps 15% but most of that is related to the value of buildings, not the value of land. For extremely wealthy people, almost nothing of their wealth or income is in the form of land, because land is not worth that much. The current billionaires aren't major landowners, we're not Victorian age with most of the upper class being rentiers living off the rents of their land estates; the upper class is living off the dividends of their capital which is not tied to land and would be tax-free in a land-tax-only regime.
Extremely large taxes on land (or are we talking about an orders of magnitude reduction in the toal tax burden, and not just about the type of taxation? If we want to drastically cut the total volume of taxes, then that becomes the main topic, not the means of collecting taxes) while not the taxing the other 90% of the economy at all is not really a reasonable solution for modern times. It may have been reasonable in 1870s, but right now all it would just remove pretty much all taxes from all the very wealthy people and corporations, while putting all the tax burden on owners of farms and homes, and the 1.5% of USA economy that handles mining.