Let's review: "if the bank owns the land as in a mortgage, they are the ones paying the tax, not the people taking out the mortgages."
You don't understand mortgages in a way that is essential to your argument. Banks holding mortgages don't own the property. At most, they own the right to grab the property if they're not paid, which is a very different thing.
But the point still stands. If the land value tax is paid by the homeowner, the sales price of the land is zero (under a 100% LVT), so the mortgage rates are lowered by an equivalent amount. So there is no additional burden upon the homeowner. If we flip the model and say the bank owns the land, they will pay the land value tax until it is paid off. In this case also, the sales price also drops to zero so the mortgage just incorporates the land value tax and the building payment. In all possible arrangements, there is no additional burden on the homeowner until the mortgage is paid off.
In this system, the homeowner loses any value they had accumulated in their house and the mortgage holder loses a large portion of the mortgage. This is what I'm saying the problem is.
I let that bit of bogosity slip by me.
The sales price of valuable land will never be 0.
Govt may not see the price, but it will be paid.
You've convinced me that Georgists don't have any experience with actual people or economies. They just have a theory unmoored to reality.
Suppose that I own a building. I may, or may not, pay for the land it sits on.
In the "land value is taxed 100%" regime, it doesn't make sense for land owners to charge rent because govt takes the "land rent".
%100% of 0 is 0.
I'm pretty sure that they'll figure out some way to get compensated. If they can't, no one will bother to own land.