To see the effect of LVT on farmers, consider the UK as an example. Under the present regime of taxation on labour, goods and services, residential land, comprising 3.5% of UK by surface area has a rental value of £200 billion a year, commercially used land, comprising 0.4% of the UK by surface area, has a rental value at least £30 billion a year. and farm and forestry land = 80% of the UK by surface...

A lively discussion has developed in Sweden around the effect of LVT on small farmers. There are not many of them but they are an influential pressure group. Small farmers in Sweden have traditionally opposed LVT, unlike their counterparts in Denmark. The issue of small farmers also surfaced in Britain a few years ago, at a fringe meeting at an LibDem annual conference. If LVT is levied on the selling...

Why do opponents of LVT wheel out the argument that farmers could not afford to pay LVT? This is taken from the latest statistics from DEFRA. “General cropping and cereal farms had large increases in rent in 2010 and the prices now stand at £249 and £176 per hectare respectively. This may be due to the improvement in the profitability of arable farming.” The main findings were 2010...

“The reason why such asset taxes are a bad idea is because there is no obvious reason why the mere possession of an illiquid asset should correspond with ability to pay on an annual or any other periodic basis. Consider planting a forest for commercial timber for example. Each year, the value of the timber goes up, but according to you the owner should have to pay a tax on the rental value...

We have received the following comments which suggest that the Campaign is not succeeding in putting over its message as clearly as it needs to…

A few days ago I received an email, titled “Authoring”, from someone who had visited our site. It said, “Don’t bother to reply unless you really are interested in a literate piece from a former partner at PriceWaterhouseCoopers explaining why your pet theory is completely and utterly barking mad and will destroy employment.” We like a challenge. I replied that…

“A land tax as you propose  would simply increase the cost of land and all it provides including food.” Land value is the residual value after all other costs have been met. That is standard economic theory and readily observable – there are numerous test situations which have shown this eg shops do not charge more for their goods if they are paying high rents. The person who...

How about this objection to LVT from the Guardian’s Comment is Free? “So people and organisations which don’t ‘own’ land but just rent or borrow it won’t pay any tax? Sounds like a top plan.” Everyone uses land. Either they own it or they rent it. Whatever the case, they make a contribution to the LVT.

Some comments from somebody who had a look at What is LVT? What can one say?