In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up...
To really sum this up, the idea was dismissed a very long time ago as the tax method suffers from seriously fatal thinking.
At a high level the concept creates such an economic distortion in that you disincentivize investment in land and you also disincentivize finding better uses of land, as the tax itself does not and cannot care about economic condition. A considerable level of wealth in this nation is tied to either investment in land or investment in industry, with this tax method you harm the former with terrible implications for the latter. Industry and even innovation needs land investment, and you geniuses kill that off with the stroke of a pen. You simply cannot manipulate the math fast enough under those tax principles to deal with changing economic conditions, and even if you tried you further disincentivize consideration for how land is used no matter the economic condition.
All you create is reaction to that tax with zero consideration for why, and that is economically suicidal.
But the even bigger issue here is that in all modern economics taxation is not exclusively about government funding. In all modern economics spending reason is first, taxation reason is second. You have to consider all the principles of fiscal policy (complemented by monetary policy) to deal with any aggregate demand condition. Georgism does not care about these things nor can it.
To prevent a bubble that means taxes should go up and government spending should go down to stabilize long term growth lines, there is less sound reason to run deficits in that condition, and the emphasis is on private investment and consumer spending being in larger control. Again, Georgism does not care about these things nor can it.
To prevent the next crash that means taxes should go down and government spending should go way up as a means to deal with whatever aggregate demand fault is occurring at the time. Deficits have to go up as a matter of all principles of stimulus. Something has caused private investment and consumer spending to take a dive and the one entity left in the equation, the federal government, has to do something about that condition. Tax policy and spending ends up one off, with specified targets to deal with that aggregate demand fault. And yet again, Georgism does not care about these things either nor can it.
There is no practical reason, no basis in economic thinking, to go with Georgism. It is almost elementary room chalkboard thinking to consider the idea.