This flat-out isn't true. Tech companies alone are a significant part of economic activity globally (e.g. they make up the majority of the top 10 largest companies in the world by market cap). Once you include all white collar work, which generally tends to be similarly divorced from land value, you're talking about the majority of the world economic activity at this point.
> Second, intellectual property holdings would be considered "land" in the Georgian sense.
Oh really? How the hell do you value that if not based on the actual income derived from said intellectual property? I.e. this is just the taxation regime that already exists.
Market cap doesn't measure economic activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...
Look at this. Among the tech companies that are high, most of those are consumer electronics or something else not purely related to tech.
Profit is a terrible measure of economic activity because it is unrelated to the amount of goods changing hands. Indeed, in industries where lots and lots of goods change hands, profit is likely to be lower.
e: Also, real estate is extremely profitable, it's just not as consolidated as the major tech companies are.
If someone makes a painting in 5 minutes and another guy pays 10M USD for it very little happened. 10M changed hands and the other guy has a painting on his wall. Yet somehow income tax proponents thinks it's fair to now take 50% from that transaction just because money changed hands. It's just not a good way to organize your tax system.
First, that is an actively contested claim. Pointing to tech companies as "way more economic activity" is laughable because (even though they occupy a huge proportion of public discourse) tech companies are a very small percentage of economic activity globally.
Second, intellectual property holdings would be considered "land" in the Georgian sense.