I support a Land Value Tax. After all, I’ve created one of the most popular videos on the subject, but I’m not a Georgist because unlike Henry George I don’t believe in a single 100% LVT. Why not 1 tax? The advantages which would be gained by substituting for the numerous taxes by which the public revenues are now raised, a single tax levied upon the value of land, will appear more and more important the more they are considered. This is the secret which would transform the little village into the great city. —
Here is what the actual Georgist platform in 1890 said.
As you can see, the world was very different then. The bulk of revenue for the US came in the form of tariffs, which are incredibly damaging. So, a lot of George's focus was on reducing tariffs and increasing the tax on land.
Modern Georgists must understand the principles of Georgism and apply them to modern times. One of the biggest ones that is glossed over/ignored in this article is "We are in favor of raising all public revenues for national, state, county, and municipal purposes by a single tax upon land values, irrespective of their improvements, AND OF THE ABOLITION OF ALL FORMS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION."
Modern Georgists have to focus on this "indirect taxation" bit, quite a lot. It is extensive, much more so than in George's time, and it depresses the overall wealth and prosperity of our society just the same as a direct tax on income or sales, or whatever.
And the last bit "With respect to monopolies other than the monopoly of land... which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned, through their proper government"
Georgism is not just "a single tax on land". Its much more. Its a philosophy of economy and a set of principles that says, amongst other things, the right source of public revenue is land rent. Realistically, we won't be a purist Georgist society in my lifetime, but if you're working from that common set of ideals I'm happy to call you a Georgist right along side me.
I think you have quite a few misconceptions, but I'll focus on the main one here: most Georgists these days are not Single Taxers. Many/most of us hold a position like "To the greatest extent possible, we should shift taxes onto land rents. But if that doesn't raise enough revenue to fund the government, we can supplement it with other taxes."
The 'if' there depends entirely on a concept called ATCOR: All Taxes Come Out of Rent. The idea behind ATCOR is that if you cut a distortionary tax (like income tax), the boost to incomes will bid-up rents, ultimately being captured by landowners. If this is true in its strongest sense, it would mean we could completely replace existing taxes with LVT while capturing at least as much revenue as at present.
Now, many of us Georgists take a neutral stance on ACTOR, and basically believe "If ATRCOR is true, great! But if not, we can supplement LVT with some other taxes".
https://hgarchives.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/single-league-of-the-united-states-platform-adopted-september-3-1890.pdf
Here is what the actual Georgist platform in 1890 said.
As you can see, the world was very different then. The bulk of revenue for the US came in the form of tariffs, which are incredibly damaging. So, a lot of George's focus was on reducing tariffs and increasing the tax on land.
Modern Georgists must understand the principles of Georgism and apply them to modern times. One of the biggest ones that is glossed over/ignored in this article is "We are in favor of raising all public revenues for national, state, county, and municipal purposes by a single tax upon land values, irrespective of their improvements, AND OF THE ABOLITION OF ALL FORMS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION."
Modern Georgists have to focus on this "indirect taxation" bit, quite a lot. It is extensive, much more so than in George's time, and it depresses the overall wealth and prosperity of our society just the same as a direct tax on income or sales, or whatever.
And the last bit "With respect to monopolies other than the monopoly of land... which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned, through their proper government"
Georgism is not just "a single tax on land". Its much more. Its a philosophy of economy and a set of principles that says, amongst other things, the right source of public revenue is land rent. Realistically, we won't be a purist Georgist society in my lifetime, but if you're working from that common set of ideals I'm happy to call you a Georgist right along side me.
I think you have quite a few misconceptions, but I'll focus on the main one here: most Georgists these days are not Single Taxers. Many/most of us hold a position like "To the greatest extent possible, we should shift taxes onto land rents. But if that doesn't raise enough revenue to fund the government, we can supplement it with other taxes."
The 'if' there depends entirely on a concept called ATCOR: All Taxes Come Out of Rent. The idea behind ATCOR is that if you cut a distortionary tax (like income tax), the boost to incomes will bid-up rents, ultimately being captured by landowners. If this is true in its strongest sense, it would mean we could completely replace existing taxes with LVT while capturing at least as much revenue as at present.
Now, many of us Georgists take a neutral stance on ACTOR, and basically believe "If ATRCOR is true, great! But if not, we can supplement LVT with some other taxes".
To show you that that's true, I'm running a twitter poll on that exact topic right now: https://x.com/GeorgistSteve/status/1702032876831682735?s=20
So in short, I think your core reason for not calling yourself a Georgist is a bit misguided.