Tim: "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."

The value of knowing what the government plans to do is already huge. If you obtain land and for example, transport infrastructure is built near by, you stand to make a huge windfall gain. I don't see how introducing LVT would add more value to that knowledge. In fact it would reduce it, as that windfall gain would no longer be available

"Your LVT is not a “market force” but a tax imposed by the State, OK?"

As I've said previously, I don't agree. The calculation of land rental values with a high degree of accuracy is perfectly possible.

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

This is not a strawman. In both cases, someone is claiming ownership over something which it is later decided they have no right of ownership over. I don't accept that anybody has a right to own a person, the land or the air around us. Whether one act is worse than the other doesn't change the underlying concept. The key difference is that slaveholders lost control of their slaves. Under LVT, freeholders would still retain secure tenure. As those freeholders would have been aware that the government exercises tax collecting powers when they obtained the freehold, the argument that they have had the rules of the game completely changed on them does not apply.

As an aside, when the slaves were freed in the US, many of them ended up worse off, because of an inability to access land. As they had no land to work or live on, they were still effectively reliant on the previous slave holders to give them access to it. The real downside was that, when the slaves were treated as property, the slave holders had reason to keep them healthy, as they were a valuable investment. Once they were freed, that incentive disappeared. An inability to exploit natural resources was in many respects just as bad for slaves as an inability to exercise their self-ownership.

"LVT would be an enormous upheaval and the mechanisms do not appear to be thought out let alone tried and tested elsewhere."

There are numerous examples of LVT working in practice. The only difference is that they haven't been enacted at higher rates.

"LVT is to fundamentally alter a basic underlying concept in England – land ownership."

There is no legal concept of land ownership in England. In law, all land in England is owned by the Crown. Freeholders have secure tenure, not absolute ownership.

"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!"

Yes, landholders would be paying 90% of the rental value of the land every year (if the rate were set at 90%). The word "indentured" is clearly wrong. Anybody holding less than the average value of land would receive more in dividend than they pay out, which is hardly a burden. If they are indentured, it is to a business of which they are an equal shareholder.

Compare that to the current situation where most people spend their working life paying off large amounts of mortgage debt and I know which looks more like indentured servitude to me.

"the house and land would be worthless in sale terms"

No, just the land. It would be a Land Value Tax. The house is private property and the full value would belong to the owner.

"In the end I suppose they would have to find some cranny somewhere that charges less rent than CBI. Why bother, eh?"

That's all down to personal choice. Somebody wanting to live a cheaper lifestyle may choose to live on a smaller cheaper plot of land. Somebody may be prepared to spend a bit more and pay out more than they receive in the dividend. I don't think this is any different to oil. It is a natural resource which can fluctuate in price too. People can either choose to drive a smaller car and use less of it, or splash out and pay more.

"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."

Given the immense concentration of landholding already, I can't see that happening, but even if it did, it wouldn't be as much of an issue, because LVT would reduce or eliminate the scope for the landholder to profit from sitting on land.