> If financial interests largely decide who gets enough funding to run in an election then how is it up to the average voter? You're responding to something co

> If financial interests largely decide who gets enough funding to run in an election then how is it up to the average voter? You're responding to something completely unrelated from what I claimed. I didn't say anything about how controls the government or election funding or anything like that. My point was that if you tried to implement LVT (or any other policy that would have the effect of reducing land/home values), you would face the biggest opposition from the average voter, who has a large chunk of their net worth (and often retirement savings) in their home. They have a material interest in their home value increasing. Take a look at who is the primary opposition to building new housing in metro areas and drives NIMBYism. Is it the "wealthy" or "financial interests"? No. It's the average homeowners who live in that community/city. > It is a theory with some pretty strong evidence, showing that normal poor people do not get their interests heard in government. That study is irrelevant, because it looks at Congress. Housing is not a federal issue though, it's a mostly local issue (with a bit of involvement at the state level). At the local level, average voters have a lot more power. If corporate interests are that powerful, do you really think the Bay Area would like it is now? Tech companies have been fairly unsuccessful in getting what they want in Bay Area cities. Again, we're not going to fix housing by yelling at the rich elites. They're not the ones stopping housing from being built, it's the average homeowner.