I mostly disagree with your example (the use of RV's is nice, although I think it changes the equations too much) but I can grant you (and Malcolm Ocean) the point:
>Yes, this is the standard Georgist position, and it's the reason why land owners mainly capture (positive and negative) externalities from land use _around_ them, not in their own land.
Might we agree that positive externalities outweigh negative ones as evidenced by high land prices? If we take this position at it's best, at the end of the day, how is taxing the capture of a positive externality (LVT) any better than the taxing the creation of value (SQ)? (Given that the positive externality already... (read more)
Many Nuance-oors like the promised pragmatic arguments for LVT (densification, lack of deadweight loss) and lament some of the principled arguments against (kicking out grandmas, unbounded gentrification). Here I build the intuition for the economic efficiency of the status quo (from here on SQ) over LVT which moved my opinion from "There is another way, have you heard of LVT?" to "Build more 1. houses 2. transport, it's literally the only way". It is not going to exhaustively prove any point or crunch many statistics but singularly gesture at a theoretical level why SQ has stronger economic arguments and LVT weaker ones than I have once believed. My intent is to put... (read 1707 more words →)
This is a really interesting thought (which I will be using in future) but I think it arises from the fact that the tax incidence has to terminate on someone at the very end. Like say income tax (and a wealth tax), depending on how you cut the pie, there are multiple different options for the set of cash flows and corresponding total tax amounts. Moving the assets / cash flows to a business / trust / a separate business / an offshore business / another person all throw a wrench into the works. When we try reconcile infinitely complex real world processes onto paper, there will be problems.