Slate picks up on idea that's been floating around in academic circles:
For a long time the economics profession has quietly noted that a land value tax is economically efficient but, having sussed out its theoretical benefits, left the subject for more intellectually rewarding pursuits. The result is a frustrating dearth of scholarship on the subject. But the few detailed papers that do exist suggest land taxes can replace most levies on labor and capital which—if true—suggests that the failure to switch to land value taxes is a much bigger deal in practice than most economists realize.
The most comprehensive work on this subject I could find is Steven Cord’s 1985 paper in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, "How Much Revenue Would a Full Land Value Tax Yield." His answer was that it could replace much more than half all taxes on labor and capital in that year. That’s stunning . . . .
[A] big benefit of land taxes is the incentive to bring land into intense use which, by definition, would be valued on the margin. Land taxes might not work, but that's an argument nobody is making.
Faithful blog commentator, Wyn Achenbaum, has been making some of these points for years. Here blog is here: http://lvtfan.typepad.com
Steve Clowney