Urban office land is easily more expensive.

I say the land value tax (LVT) is best grouped with Pigouvian taxes; as PP says, normal property tax relatively incentivizes holding undeveloped land, which is like charging a higher carbon tax if your car has a better MPG.

One one hand, we can also do a VAT in developed countries --- perhaps more feasible than in the 19th century and making more sense if we are no longer rapidly developing and reliant on private investment to foster those changes --- on the other hand in big closed economies we can also just print money quite safely, so Henry George is quite right to focus Pigouvian taxes when "taxation for the revenue" is far less important than curbing bad material outcomes.

(I only suggest VAT with a UBI to make it no longer regressive.)

The value of the land that Google uses is tremendous because the Google offices are located on it!

But an LVT isn’t a tax on the infrastructure it is a tax on the value of the underlying land.

It's the proximity to Google's economic activity that makes the land valuable. A plot of land right next to the Googleplex that has nothing on it is immensely more valuable than an equally sized plot of land in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Sure this is true, but this also one of things Georgism seeks fix (land speculation.) A georgist LVT appraises land based on the intrinsic value of the resources it contains and not what is build on it. In fact it seeks to fix “land hoarding” to incentivize productive land. Under a proper LVT it would be really expensive for e.g. one person to own 100 acres of land they aren’t utilizing to it’s true economic potential.

Google owns more than $50B of real estate...