Apologies for the delay, I missed this somehow. > I can't speak to the political will, but in terms of complexity the inverse is true: a universally-applicable

Apologies for the delay, I missed this somehow. > I can't speak to the political will, but in terms of complexity the inverse is true: a universally-applicable LVT and universally-applicable UBI is far less complex for everyone involved than trying to navigate a bunch of ad hoc taxes and exemptions. OK, so I agree that from nothing they would be simpler setups. What I mean to state is that right now, given the current world we live in, changing existing tax rates is easier than introducing and feeling out two entirely new concepts. > It leads to inflation when > >1. it's funded through government moneyprinting instead of a solid tax system, and/or > >2. it gets captured by landlords who jack up rents in response to the new demand > > LVT rather explicitly and directly fixes both of these problems; it provides a maximally-fair and maximally-efficient tax revenue, and it feeds land value increases back into the tax revenue (and therefore UBI disbursements) instead of letting landlords capture it. It's a self-balancing system with no room for inflation to happen (at least not through either LVT or UBI). It's not that I'm against LVT or don't think it could be good. My point is that attempting to add LVT and/or UBI are just not practical. They may be theoretically great, but there are other options on the table. > Which is yet another thing which LVT explicitly and directly addresses. Specifically: > The behaviors we want to disincentivize are land speculation and rentseeking. LVT is the most direct disincentive to both, and we Georgists ain't exactly shy about that being the key reason why we believe LVT to be necessary for a free and equitable society; the economic properties are just a nice bonus :) I agree! I just think that LVT is a bigger lift than "just" raising taxes on the behavior we want to disincentivize specifically.