[AnimalMuppet]

As best as I recall, every time I've heard people argue for LVT, they have wanted to replace other taxes, not supplement them. If you're going to keep the other taxes, well, land is usually already taxed in most places, and the tax is usually somewhat proportional to the value of the land. If you keep other taxes, what does an LTV do that we aren't already doing?

And your original claim was:

> Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the tax burden onto land, we could potentially reduce the distortionary effects of other taxes and promote economic growth.

If you keep the other taxes, that benefit is reduced, compared to if other taxes were eliminating. (Though, on re-reading, I do see several bits of language that indicate you were thinking about not eliminating other taxes.)