Land tax is one of the least ethical forms of taxation. It would be far better to fund it with income, sales, or capital gains taxes.

Most economists argue the opposite, that LVT is more ethical and efficient than other forms of taxation.

I don't think "most economists" have a favorable view of it. It is a fringe theory from the 1800s that has never been implemented.

It is super regressive and effectively replaces everything with a housing tax and food tax.

It would be a massive tax break for the rich. IP, stock, and service income would be tax free.

It is primarily popular with a narrow band of white collar technology workers because it would benefit them immensely as their 500k SWE salary become tax free to be picked up by some poor school teacher living next door.

Teacher can’t afford to live next door because a retired couple that bought for 2 times their salary in 1975 live in a million pound house. They instead rent an hour away and already pay a tax for land use, just they pay it to the land owner.

It basically says everyone has an equal share of the unimproved land in a country.

If you use more of your fair share you pay more. If you use less you receive an income.

Instead the ultra wealthy owns the land and receives the income.

Far more ethical than either no tax or taxing productive work.

i haven't read much about this, but i think that the point is that land taxes should incentivize people to make their land work ad produce an income. the problem is that this only works if you have lots of land that can be meaningfully exploited. if the tax is applied equally to every one then small landowners will suffer because you can't make a profit from a house and a garden that you live in yourself.