*2b and only .25 acres of land would be exempt. (Of some other generally agreed amount)

No exemption necessary. Just eg pay out all the land value tax as a basic income. And automatically anyone sitting on less than the average amount of land (in terms of value, not size), will get a net income. People sitting on more, will make a net payment.

Let's not make it unnecessarily complicated. Basic income is a good idea on its own, but mix it with land use taxation and you get into all sorts of problems. For example, how do handle a rented block of flats, would your land usage tax/income vary depending on how many tenants were currently renting in that block of flats?

Tax exemption for primary residences (under a certain size) + basic income is a far more flexible arrangement, and you lose none of the benefits of determining basic income on land use.

> [...] would your land usage tax/income vary depending on how many tenants were currently renting in that block of flats?

It's a land value tax, not land usage tax. So it would be independent on what you do with the land. (Basically it would be driven by the opportunity costs of what someone else could be doing with the land instead.)

> Tax exemption for primary residences (under a certain size) + basic income is a far more flexible arrangement, and you lose none of the benefits of determining basic income on land use.

Why? That's much more complicated, and full of loopholes.

I do agree that tying land value tax to financing basic income is only potentially a good idea, not necessarily.

But why not just tax profits from sales instead of fiddling around and implicitly creating special interest groups?

Taxing sales doesn't tackle the misuse of land that has already been sold.

Sure it does. It discourages using land for speculation. If the appreciation curve flattens out, some people buying property as an investment will look to other markets that don't impact the standard of living so directly.

What about the land people already own?