Paul: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 am struggling with how to respond to this one as it is so non-sequitur, an inversion almost. LVT distorts and brings down the sale value, so how can the rise in that value be used to increase LVT? You have a negative feedback loop! You said you use market rates, actual sale values, NOT a “perception”, though I can say I think the State would fall back on its “perception” of “market value”. Rentals are not accurate until the planning gain has actually materialised, surely? Again, this will play merry hell with sales, prices and put even more value on knowing what future plans the government has, i.e. corruption.

Paul: 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.

No, Paul, No. Your LVT is not a “market force” but a tax imposed by the State, OK?

Paul: 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.

This, Paul, is another strawman. I cannot see how you can in all honesty compare owning land with owning a person!

Paul: 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.

Paul, please do not be disingenuous about views on uncertainty here. LVT would be an enormous upheaval and the mechanisms do not appear to be thought out let alone tried and tested elsewhere. LVT is to fundamentally alter a basic underlying concept in England – land ownership.

Paul: 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.

You need to explain what you mean by this. It seems you want to take 90% of the rental yield in taxation every year? Landowners then are not just tenants but indentured tax collectors!

Paul: 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.

So, a person owning their own home would pay the rental value in tax to the State and in return get “a share” via CBI. If rental rates do not alter much, the owner of a house will probably end up with a mortgage paid off but still paying to the State an LVT equivalent to their mortgage…for the rest of their working lives, the house and land would be worthless in sale terms and so they do not even get any retirement value from downsizing, just less tax. Oh joy. In the end I suppose they would have to find some cranny somewhere that charges less rent than CBI. Why bother, eh? All that effort just to have some choice over paint schemes and when to fit a new kitchen. As I have said before, LVT will probably do more to concentrate land ownership in the hands of the few (or the State) than the current system ever could.

Paul: That is exactly what I consider the situation to be.

Then you misunderstand what common land is/was and the difference to someone clearing uninhabited wilderness, or chose to conflate the two.

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

But the State is collecting and setting rates to the extent of reducing sale value to zero and forcing landowners to a) develop just to keep incomes up to match the demands by the State and b) become tax collectors.