"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"

I think that sort of answers the question. LVT would increase in response to price rises which were due to a market perception of a rise in value.

" 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."

But VED was increased on the whim of the state, not by market forces. A more relevant example is the fact that a number of people are in the same position with their cars purely because oil prices have increased and it has become less attractive to run a large-engined car.

"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."

Exactly the same argument was made about the abolition of slavery. Some argued that, even if the slaves had the right to be free, freeing them would violate the slave owners' property rights, as they had bought their slaves in good faith. It was a reasonable point, but I don't think it would have ever been enough to make retaining slavery correct. I don't hate landowners, but I don't view land ownership as a valid concept, just land holding.

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

If you feel uncertainty about the outcome of change (which there will always be), is sufficient to reason to retain the status quo, it seems strange that you are active in an organisation which seeks to move away from the status quo quite substantially in a number of areas.

"So you want to zero land sale prices? So land becomes just a tenancy?"

In principle, I would like to see zero land sale prices, although in practice, I'd be quite comfortable with a rate set at, say, 90% of rental value, with the other 10% rolled up into a selling price.

"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."

Personally, I'd prefer to see it introduced gradually over a twenty year period. Given the amount of mortgage debt in the country, I don't think making the move too quickly would be sensible. I'd like to see the rate at 5% of rental value in the first year with all the revenue paid out as a citizens' dividend, so it is kept completely separate from other tax revenues and not seen as another tax grab by the state. The rate could be increased to 10% of rental value in the second year, then 15% in the third year and so on. As the citizens' dividend increased, it would allow the steady reduction of other taxes, as expenditure such as benefit payments could be fairly painlessly withdrawn.

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

That is exactly what I consider the situation to be.

"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."

Yes, I am saying that land cannot be property. Not of an individual, not of an organisation and not of the state.