Thanks again Jock.

1. You CANNOT say the market sets the value, for the State is distorting the value by slapping a tax upon it. Any land that becomes valuable even by the work of others and not the state is re-rated and becomes an expense to hold and less valuable than the "market value" set by the State. Grief, it is bad enough when the State retrospectively taxes old cars.

2. So why did you raise it?

3. Why is it extortion? The Farmer has legal title unless you introduce your geo-lib mindset but that means you have a circular dependency. You also conveniently sweep under the carpet the problem when an Authority decides it wants to "do something" and so rezones an area for development and so the value of the land rises. Developments do not creep around unless you can in truth remove planning restrictions and return to organic growth and end "town planning" which has, with a few private exceptions, almost universally resulted in disaster.

4. CBI. You can disagree, but you did not provide an answer to the problem that CBI would be unlikely to cover all expenses and so millions will remain with means-tested benefits - remember, that those renting privately will have to pay more because the landowner will be passing on the LVT - and don't think they will not! I give you an indication of how much the original level will cost. Even at £100pw you will need to COLLECT an extra amount equivalent to 50-60% of TOTAL tax revenues just to redistribute it again. If it does not force individual urban home owners (mortgage holders) to have to sell up to pay the LVT, I would be very surprised. You also mention the rental income at the peak of the market. I bet you the State would not reduce LVT when the market dips because it will not have the income to pay for all that CBI.

5. You talk of 100% LVT now you speak of only a portion accruing to the State (and please do not use the term "community", it is NOT going to the people, but to the State).

I am still not convinced at all at the scenario you paint about companies moving. We already have vast differences in cost and it does not really make anyone want to shift to outlying areas in any great numbers.

In Hong Kong we are talking about leases bought up front, not retrospective and yearly taxes on land orginally held as freehold. The plots are sold at auction, also, not set by the State.

If Chang Kai-Shek looked into it, it is no advert, I am afraid - he was linked to all manner of gangland rackets. Further, LVT when selling State owned assets on is another game entirely to retrospectively applying it to privately held land as above. In fact I would prefer any land currently running as a Hospital or School and owned by the State to be leased and not sold to maintain some form of covenant over the use (and as such prevent asset stripping at the expense of us).

p.s. Paul did not properly answer the "state as landlord", question IMHO.

p.p.s. Maybe someone should make a new housing estate an "LVT zone" where the seller offers to pay all taxes in exchange for giving a CBI but charging LVT. Watch what happens when people have a choice to move in. See who moves in. See who does not. See if the operator makes money or loses money and what happens to those there and the decisions they make to stay or go. Maybe that is the way - no compulsion.