Lars here. I run the Center for Land Economics with Greg (we wrote the OP blog post). We are not maximalist single taxers.
Henry George was obviously a Single Taxer, but "Georgism" has a generally broader meaning than that. Some Georgists are single taxers, but not all, including Greg and I.
When we talk to elected officials, we don't even talk about Henry George all that much (I did in the ACX article series because it all started with the progress and poverty book review). We mostly speak of "Land value return" and our focus is mostly on pragmatic revenue neutral tax shifts to LVT.
If I start espousing the great ideas of economist Karl Marx in a long comment I will forgive you for assuming that I may be a bit of a Marxist unless my comment has clear caveats to the contrary.
The comment advocates for Georgeism. If they disagree they can say so and elaborate on which non-LVT taxes they support. They haven't because my read on them is correct.
Karl Marx had a lot of great ideas that have been integrated into our modern liberal democracies (antitrust laws, labor unions, public schooling, etc). One can have a nuanced discussion of Das Kapital without being a communist. If you assume otherwise, that's your own cognitive blind spot.
I never said communist. But yes, you can pick and choose ideas from different thinkers. That said, what Nevermark wrote fits squarely within orthodox Georgeism.
They're free to prove me wrong by saying that they're in favour of sales tax or income tax or capital gains tax. That would prove to me that they're just taking the idea that "land value tax is good" without buying into Georgeism as a whole. But I'm confident we'll never see such a comment.
