One reason the West is prosperous is we have the rule of law. This obviously doesn't free investors from all risks but it does reduce political risks, i.e. being arbitrarily dispossessed by the government is mostly not something you factor in. In poorer countries it does get factored in: people take less risk and demand a higher premium for doing so, since why bother if it's just going to get seized? This goes a decent part of the way to explaining why they are poorer countries.
A Georgist would counter that land is special in this regard: unlike investment in productive enterprise, we don't actually need investment in land to create wealth. I think it's an open question whether markets would actually buy this designation, or see it as open season on all kinds of property. The latter would be very, very bad!
this isn't about seizing property, but about not giving away tax money to wealthy landowners every time our laws change against their interest toward the broader public interest.
Eh, this is a fine line. If Henry had his way we'd have a 100% tax on land, which means unimproved land is now worthless since you can't make any profit off it. A true LVT tax is effectively the same as a seizure of your unimproved land, as its entire value has been collapsed.
Henry George’s LVT is a 100% tax on land rents. A 100% tax is also known as a seizure. Maybe there is some tax rate that would make this more in line with existing corporate or income taxes but setting it so low would also undermine its key benefits.
that's being intentionally obtuse. the tax is on rents, not the land itself (nor on productive use). again, rents are unproductive, while seizure is taking by force. make productive use of desirable and productive land or sell it if you don't want to pay the tax (note: no seizure here), and move to less desirable land if you just want to own land without that pressure.
less than roughly 1% of the land area of the US would have such pressures, so you'd have plenty of tax-free land to choose from, and it'd be cheaper to buy too. productive land should be put to its "highest and best use".
A Georgist would counter that land is special in this regard: unlike investment in productive enterprise, we don't actually need investment in land to create wealth. I think it's an open question whether markets would actually buy this designation, or see it as open season on all kinds of property. The latter would be very, very bad!