not really; low land value means there's less utility in building a home there. Build a house in the desert if you want, good luck selling it later. Georgism kills using houses as a store of value.
Roughly the same amount of land is required by everyone, if the only source of revenue is land then everyone pays the same amount of tax regardless of income.
Given that employees/retail customers would no longer have to pay income tax that same amount of money would be available for land lords to charge as increased rent or retailers in increased prices.
I really fail to see how in a realistic scenario that this really changes anything at all. I would hazard a guess that this would likely be the most regressive tax code we've seen in modern history as large landowners would charge everyone roughly what they are being charged now plus what they customarily pay in income tax, and then likely distribute their own tax burden amongst the tenants.
As a high income earner I whole heartedly support the idea that only land should be taxed, but I don't think it's going to play out like everyone thinks it will, given that land is not a particularly large store of wealth, 200 / 3000 trillion, or about 6%
I think the only thing this tax code would do is encourage wealthy people to build very tall towers and farms in remote areas, and sell each other their property at dirt cheap prices. Vertical farming would also probably become a thing.
