George saw both poverty and wealth side by side, and was staggered by the contrast. He felt that redistributing wealth through LVT would help address this.

So more wealth would end up in the hands of those in poverty. But where does this wealth "comes from" ? You could claim it was always there, and it is captured by LVT. Or that rent is lowered and so people end up with more wealth in their hands. Another possibility is that the different pressures applied through the introduction of LVT mean that existing resources are more efficiently used, so _generating_ wealth in the application of LVT.

Wealth does seem to be unfairly captured through land, but this is not an effect which dominates over all other considerations. Nor does it seem that much personal wealth would be freed up through lower rent, or that the additional wealth generated would make that much difference.

Veblen's and Galbraith's points of view are applicable at this point. According to them, a significant component of wealth is captured by an elite who consume it wastefully, and there is also a significant amount of economic activity which produces marginally useful goods. Essentially, they are produced not because they are useful, but because they keep people employed. The economy has moved past the point of manufacturing goods which are needed and are useful.

What this means is that there is a lot of wealth in the economy. We are just bursting with it. But the wealth is not used productively. So far, there is some agreement with Geonomics. Where it differs is that according to the Veblen/Galbraith point of view, the capture and allocation of this surplus wealth has nothing to do with the ownership of land.

So, from this point of view, LVT will not act to significantly change inequities in the distribution of wealth. It certainly can't hurt, but its improvements are overstated. And LVT grabs the wrong end of the stick; there are disparities in wealth capture, but there is also a great deal of wealth anyway. Many of those who receive wealth will waste it anyway.

Now, these other sources of wealth capture could be considered privelege, and Geonomists are generally concerned about them too. To the extent that Geonomics acknowledge these other sources of privilege, good. See What is Geonomics, really ?