> there are far fewer economists who would suggest that 100% LVT

Yeah that's the exact distinction I was drawing. The article says Georgism but talks about land tax in general, which is popular with many non-Georgist economists.

However, I have to take issue with your example

1) Land is effectively nationalized under 100% LVT. Worker likely own (the profits of) more land than before

2) The value of the land where the tradesman works is already used against him, to extract the majority of hte profits of his labor. He already pays the land value tax - to his landlord. From his perspective, the burden changes little while the wealthier lose an avenue to make money without working.

3) A luxurious house / lifestyle still requires paying land tax on the things you consume (the land of course and notably energy sources, minerals, timber, building materials, etc). The kind of spartan lifestyle required to truly avoid this tax works now too - incorporate as a company and don't pay yourself a salary.

4) I think very few people care about a $500k salary tech workers, or footballers, or what have you. It's the billionaire oligarchs influencing politics who attract the most attention.

5) Current day oligarchs derive a lot of their wealth from land and other monopoly rents, not from simply 'working more' or 'contributing more value'. This is resented by many. When people get rich by contributing (relatively more) value, they are usually widely praised