Yes, I do agree with that.
That theory or fact goes back to Adam Smith, who said the same thing. He said that since land is not a productive factor of production with capital and labour—land is necessary but not productive—taxes should come essentially as much as possible from that source. Milton Friedman and others have said the same thing.
Point two is that it is a good tax, but it would be politically very difficult to change the taxing strategy that we have. If all of you can figure out how to do that, that would be great, because we don't emphasize land value as a destination for tax. The credible theory for this is that by taxing land instead of income or instead of capital gains, as you're considering, you do not undercut the vigour of the economy, and it ends up making things like housing more affordable, because it will be valued for its use value only, rather than its asset appreciation value.
I promised to be short, so I will say in the next 10 seconds that if it's politically impossible to restructure the world around a land value tax, there are also other mechanisms that have to do with zoning regulations and things like bonus density and so forth and are policy tools that do the same thing. They mitigate what would otherwise have been a land price inflation in the absence of those policy requirements.