Completely unrelated but i recently came across this bit of old economic theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
not being familiar with it other then a cursory skim of the Wikipedia page what are the unaddressed positives and negatives of such a system?
I would recommend reading George's
Progress and Poverty if this has piqued your interest at all. It can be bought extremely cheaply (or found for free online) and is worth a read whether or not you have interest in economics.
The essence of his argument is that land ownership is an unethical form of property (with its original title stemming from conquest and theft) through which landowners are permitted to extort the fruits of others' labors as described by the Ricardian
Law of Rent. In practical terms, the portion of wealth that is earned by laborers from their work is greatly diminished by landowners being permitted to seek rent solely from having a monopoly on the physical space necessary to produce wealth.
He talks of all the major (but insufficient) remedies to poverty that had been proposed as of his publication in 1879. These included people claiming that poverty could be solved by a more efficient government, a moral improvement in the "industriousness" and "temperance" of the poor, collective bargaining (unions), mutual cooperation of labor and capital, government regulation and intervention (e.g. the minimum wage), and a redistribution of land to be more equitable. Of these, he wrote that only collective bargaining and government intervention could hope to temporarily and weakly mitigate poverty for as long as the root cause of private land ownership continued, with his proposed permanent solution being a land value tax as discussed in that wikipedia article you linked.
His ideas had an incredible amount of influence after publication, but if you talk to economics professors today many won't have even heard of him. His contemporary Marx ended up the more well-known political economist of the time, with George's ideas more libertarian and liberal than Marx.