One of the arguments being put against LVT is that is a tax on imputed incomes, not real ones. The point was wittily made in a letter in the FT a few days ago – “if LVT is a tax on imputed incomes”, it was asked, “could it be paid with an imputed cheque?” Accepting this line of argument, all you could expect for your imputed payment would be imputed police and fire...

One of our supporters sent a copy of our comments on the report of the Treasury Committee Tax Review Inquiry back to the Treasury Committee. It was answered by the House of Commons Committee Assistant as follows: “The Committee did not give an opinion either way on whether land value tax was worth further consideration. Instead it noted that radical tax changes had been mooted, and drew attention...

The past few months have seen a flurry of activity which has probably helped to bring LVT more public attention more than for several decades. Notably, it was espoused by one of the candidates for the Labour leadership and there were three articles in the Guardian. The first two articles were vague to the point that it was unclear what was being proposed. The third of the articles, by Mark Braund,...

These by email from someone called Richard Davis, of a company called Praetorian Properties, so not exactly a disinterested party. One would have thought that a property professional would have a better grasp of the implication of LVT, but seemingly not in this case. I tried to reply but the email was returned.

Rothbard put the case against LVT in Critique of Georgism and Reply to Georgists They are demolished in A Critique of Murray Rothbard’s Critique of the Georgist Argument

“If they (the wealthy) don’t want to pay land taxes, they shift all their income-generating assets somewhere else (that won’t subject them to land value tax.) Offshore. They have escaped the land value tax. None of this is to say that land value taxes aren’t good. Quite the contrary. It’s just that they can only ever be part of a solution.” Can someone please...