The first is that most promoted computer economic models do not have LVT as a parameter. You can change a single thing : "tax". Charge too little tax, and inflation will go up. Charge too much and economic activity will go down.

However, Georgists do claim that LVT is non inflationary. They claim it has different characteristics to the blunt "tax" normally used in economic models.

Now, maybe things behave the way they say and maybe not. But it seems that economic models lack scientific rigour if they leave out a parameter which could have such significant effects.

The next is the fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics reduced the rental component of the CPI a few year back. Maybe they had good reason to. Maybe its the result of "changing the data to fit the theory", perhaps done through the context rather than deliberately. But its an interesting fact.

Some Georgists have endorsed the Tobin tax, a tax on currency movement to reduce speculation. It seems a good thing. However, its not clear how endorsement of this tax necessarily follows from Georgist principles.

Next, we consider some problems for Geonomics. Ad hoc things, perhaps they do not undermine its theoretical foundations.

In country Queensland, if I understand correctly, no one owns their properties. They are all under long term lease from the Government. I think something similar happens in the ACT. When people do not in fact own their land, and are only paying charges on it to the Government, it makes the issue of LVT a bit strange. You'd not be taxing based on ownership. You'd be playing around with the charge rates and definitions, but little else.

In many country towns, there is an almost absolute monopoly on land. While LVT would be a "nudge" to encourage better use of land, it will have difficulties obliging better behaviour from such monopoly landholders.

Presently, the landholder can keep a shop vacant for months, holding the rent up and refusing to lower it. They are not participating in the market, they are controlling the market. LVT would be a nudge to stop them from doing this, but the imbalance of power would mean they would still be able to do this, albeit at a larger cost to themselves. Being a country town, the land value would not be that high, and so the cost might be a lot then than the benefit they would derive from abusing their monopoly control.

In such chronic instances of monopoly, you would need more than LVT to address the situation.