Paul: “The mind of the state would be irrelevant if the taxable value were set according to the systematic use of market data.”

What “market data”? How do you intend to collect reliable data when the price of land (the value to the owner) is being constantly devalued and distorted by LVT? As soon as prices might start to rise due to a market perception of a rise in value, land taxation increases, forcing it down (due to tax of holding the land). You will surely not get sensible prices because LVT aims to take the planning gain back from the landowner and into the State coffers, so surely land values (sale prices) would reflect that and so tend to post tax value, so making accurate tax value of that land harder to estimate. I refer back to the VED example. VED was retrospectively increased. The real loses will be the existing owners who a) have to pay more or b) try and sell, but can only sell at a price that already compensates for the tax increases for the remaining life of the car. The owner is stuffed either way. Maybe “geo-Libertarians” want to stuff landlowners till kingdom come, who knows.

Paul: “Even if the system were imperfect, it would still be a better option than maintaining the current system of landholders enjoying an extensive state granted privilege.”

Only if you hate landowners, perhaps. Many landowners paid for the land “privilege” already, even if it was to the wrong person. You need to address that if you are to have even a shred of respectability to the scheme.

Paul: “To me, maintaining a system of privilege because it might not be possible to resolve it perfectly is a little like saying we shouldn't try to catch murderers because we won't be able to catch them all, so it would be unfair to the ones we do catch.”

A strawman. Not even close. A good parallel is saying “well, we have not worked out a way of air traffic control, but hey, lets open the airport and see…”

Paul: “I don't believe it would do, but uncertainty about how things might turn out is not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to maintain the status quo.”

In a theoretical environment this is an attitude people feel they can take, but it is not one for a Government.

Paul: “In order to avoid the problems that would come with instantly zeroing land sale prices, the charge would have to be introduced gradually in any case, which would give plenty of time to iron out problems.”

So you want to zero land sale prices? So land becomes just a tenancy? Sounds like Communism to me. Putting that aside, the point about phasing in. Fine – so outline the process. This is part of my reservations re LVT as a single tax. Everyone talks about the end point and almost nothing done about how to get there sensibly without chaos or revolution or even real thought about how the mechanisms will persist over time.

Paul: “If land is being held privately, it has at some point been enclosed.”

Enclosures are not the same - the fencing off of the commons without consent from all.

Paul: “Nobody is suggesting that anybody should pay land rent because they've cleared land anymore than they would be charged more for building a house on the land. The reason that land rent would be levied would be reflect the fact that the holder is enjoying a state-granted monopoly over the land.”

Amounts to the same thing – tax for the value, development potential or actual development of land, even if the person has paid for it (you can argue it was paid to the right person or not, but how to fix that?). You cannot justify the tax on the reality of what is done and even what DETERMINES the tax level, yet you assert this “state granted monopoly” is a reason. Currently the State acts on my behalf to help defend my sovereignty over myself and my property. What you are in truth saying is land cannot be property, in effect, right? If it were like other property, the State would not be “granting” the monopoly (very Socialist/Statist mindset, the term “grant”, btw). It might seem like semantics, but it is a HUGE difference in mindset.