> 
> The main problem with the old George proposal to
> replace all other taxes 
> with a land or site
> tax is that governments are now simply too large to
> be funded out of the 
> income that goes just
> to land.  Maybe that would have worked in the 19th
> century, but no more.


Such things are not fixed in stone, and vary according
to context. I suspect that a land/resource tax might
generate "enough" revenue in Saudi Arabia. As for the
US, how much is really "enough"? We should not take it
simply as granted that governments are simply too
large for any particular tax. Perhaps modern
governments are themselves simply too large. The 1994
Congress passed a budget that would have set the US on
the path towards reducing the Federal Budget to single
digits, as a percentage of GDP. Of course, CLinton
forced a revision of this plan, and Republicans have
since grown fond of federal spending. But the fact of
the matter is that much of the Federal budget could be
zeroed out wihtout causing a collapse of modern
civilization. Some would say that extensive cuts in
Federal spending would actually improve economic
conditions. 

I do not agree with Georgist arguments for the single
tax, but the idea that the single tax is unworkable
because government is necessarily 'too big', is not
supported by any established facts. Modern governments
are arguably too large, and could possibly be
downsized to fit with the single tax, assuming  that
the single tax is itself desirable. 

Doug Mackenzie