Sorry for the late reply, a very busy time.

Paul: 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

LVT is worse as it presumes value before it is capitalised. It is the State having first call. If you are a homeowner and the value of land goes up around you, LVT may well force you to sell up at a time not of your chosing. Can you not see how that is, frankly, an obscenity?

Paul: The calculation of land rental values with a high degree of accuracy is perfectly possible.

Then provide a mechanism to do it. The one you have provided is systemically dysfunctional for the reasons I have given.

Paul: 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.

Land does not ask not to be bought and sold. Land is inanimate. A slave wants to be free and is denied freedom. You might as well say I only have secure tenure over my fridge.

Paul: 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.

You are jumping into your worldview as if it is already running. How do you get from where we are now to that place? Incrementally cranking up LVT is “an answer” but does not solve the problems of implementation, but only alter the manner in which the upheaval will unfold.

Paul: As an aside, when the slaves were freed in the US, many of them ended up worse off

LVT as you describe will force land to be put up for rent, but the State will be taking 90% of the earning potential of that land. It is, in effect, when used in the way you describe, National Feudalism, where people work the land and the State Uber Landlord demands almost all the value of that land each year. People, especially little people, cannot hold land unless it is worked constantly AND constantly upgraded to yield almost as much as the surrounding plots.

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

That is like saying that there are numerous examples of Income Tax working, so it is ok to charge 90%. LVT as a single tax? LVT as 90% of yield? LVT retrospectively applied to what was a mixed freeholding population?

Paul: Freeholders have secure tenure, not absolute ownership.

Sorry, could you repeat that please, for I could not quite hear it over the sound of hairs begin split. Answer - end the Crown ownership angle, not make it worse by replacing it with the State.

Paul: 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.

Indentured is not about equal ownership, but I do concede it is the wrong term. Nationalised Feudalism is a more appropriate phrase for the form of LVT you seem to be in support of. In fact, why don’t you just say you want to nationalise land instead of using LVT as a back-door mechanism? The whole cost and unintended consequences of the dividend is an entire conversation in itself.

I think it highly dangerous to liberty that people living in their prime residence will be subject to constant and ever changing and unpredictable demands for cash rental value upon that place by the State. Council Tax is obscene enough. LVT as you describe will make it far worse.

Paul: 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.

Mortgages end. Your LVT will follow people to the grave.

Paul: 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.

Land value is high when surrounded by well built and maintained houses. It is fantasy to think that you can separate the two in a country like Britain where we value old buildings and the condition and nature of our neighbours and neighbourhood. In places like Asia, people always tear down properties and rebuild. Land is more of size and location and so LVT can be more effective. I know that from personal experience. In Britain it is far far more complex than just land value. I also know that from personal experience.

Paul: People can either choose to drive a smaller car and use less of it, or splash out and pay more.

Yes, but the analogy does not travel. People cannot uproot that house they call home but you say is not a factor in all this. People can change their car but that is no where near is disruptive as the need to change their very home, the kids school, furniture that no longer fits, leaving behind that new kitchen, their place of work even which might be necessary. It is also a matter of degrees. A new car lasts 10-15 years and one should in truth not be buying a new one without the idea that it could be lost, destroyed and most certainly not holding value.

Paul: LVT would reduce or eliminate the scope for the landholder to profit from sitting on land.

LVT as you portray it would reduce the scope for the little guy to retain land far more than the big guy. Think about that implication - it should not take very long. They would be forced to work it, justify it or develop it just to stand still. Retired people in a bungalow would not be able to sit there until they are happy to move or retire to sheltered accommodation and cash in, no, they would be forced due to high LVT to "sell up" to someone with the capital to convert that plot into something that could justify the LVT imposed, but sell up for what? Your version of the scheme is to render sale price marginal and not even factor in the bricks and mortar. This is why I see the mechanism moving towards State Landlord (de facto) and a form of National Feudalism that will concentrate landholding.

LVT on commercial property in respect to planning gain caused by public works is one thing, but as a means to end private landholding it is another.