Tim: "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."

The Libertarian Party policy states "Until a practical Land Value Taxation system can be devised, forms of zoning (such as Green Belts) will still be needed," which implies that under LP introduced LVT, zoning would be abolished and would no longer be an issue. Even if some level of planning were retained, the system could be amended so that only the landholder could apply for a change in permission.

I'm also a little confused by the way you consider 100% LVT to be an unacceptable form of nationalisation, but seem fairly comfortable with the idea of planning restrictions, which are effectively collectivised control over the use of privately held land.

That is partly the point I was making about the “state as landlord” issue. The “collect rent and pay dividend” approach would not give the state any greater power over the use of privately held land and could actually help to weaken its control.

"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! "

This is probably the most common error that gets made when discussing LVT, because it is intuitively correct, but in economic terms, it can’t work that way. The land owner cannot pass on the LVT for the simple reason that he will already be charging the market rent. If there was any scope for increasing rents, the majority of landlords would have already done it. That is Ricardo's Law of Rent. Adam Smith describes this effect in The Wealth of Nations far more eloquently than I ever could.

"Maybe that is the way - no compulsion"

The whole issue is that under the current system, the state enforces a private monopoly over land without requiring those who benefit from that state granted monopoly to compensate others.