Yes, but the vast majority of that equity is in the house itself, not in the land underneath it. On top of that, land in the suburbs is not as valuable as, say, land in Downtown (which is a big part of why the house itself is most of the value of a typical home).

> Most wealthy do not have their wealth in land.

Maybe not directly, but indirectly the vast majority of their wealth boils down to land. Every skyscraper, every warehouse, every factory, every mall, all those consume large swaths of typically-valuable land. In short:

> LVT would mostly fall on middle class homeowners, not the wealthy.

It would mostly fall on whomever owns the most land value - and that is overwhelmingly massive corporations and rich people. A middle class homeowner owns a tiny amount of land value in comparison - certainly far below their equal share, and therein lies the rub: 100% LVT disbursed directly, evenly, and entirely as UBI serves as a self-balancing system:

- If you own less land value than your equal share, you're paid for it

- If you own more land value than your equal share, you pay for it

Homeowners in California largely own less than their equal share of California's total land value; unless you own a single-family home in Downtown SF or something, you're highly likely to come out ahead under LVT+UBI. The lion's share of land value ownership is corporate - and it's accordingly that lion's share that would bear the vast majority of LVT.