By the "growth in inequality" what I'm really talking about is the share of the economy that's distributed to capital rather than labor. Section 1.4 presents e

By the "growth in inequality" what I'm really talking about is the share of the economy that's distributed to capital rather than labor. Section 1.4 presents extensive documents that land represents a majority of the assets in nearly all advanced economies. And not agricultural land, residential land. This comes from Piketty and others. It also shows the analysis that other tacked on to Piketty to show that the increase in the share of the economy returning to capital comes from housing. Finally, the linked article compares the size of the LVT to a 100% tax on all billionaires, and it turns out that the billionaires don't have that much of a share of the economy. It took decades for their billionaires to build their wealth, but that wealth would only fund about a year of US gov expenditures. Whereas the LVT serves to almost fund every year in perpetuity. (Though I also support additional taxes too) To actually alleviate inequality, we don't need to just tax the billionaire capitalists, we also need some amount of tax on the multimillionaires that have also been taking money away from labor through increased returns to their housing assets. All this is to say is that perhaps your intuitions about the economy might not be right, and if you evaluate some of the data here, you might come away with a radically changed view of who has all the wealth in our nation, and where it is held (largely in land).