Killer arguments against LVT, not (41)

Longrider lays into Oliver Kamm's thought experiment about extending capital gains tax to people's main residence here.

(On a practical level, I agree with LR's objections. My view is that replacing as many publicly collected taxes as possible with levy on privately collected taxes, i.e. Land Value Tax would be far better, but the main thrust of the comments seems to be "privately collected taxes = good, publicly collected taxes = bad".)

Never mind, returning to the topic, Andrew Duffin, in the comments, chimes in with this:

My house is nice (I would think so, I built it myself!), I have no idea what it’s worth because it has never been sold, and I don’t really care anyway, since I have no intention of moving.

I don’t keep it because it makes me rich (how could it? And it’s quite the opposite when the maintenance bills roll in), but because it’s mine lock stock and barrel, and nobody can take it away from me however impoverished I may become in future old age. That’s security, and it’s important.

Of course, if some toad comes along and imposes Land Value Tax, I’ll possibly be out on the street. Naming no names, you understand…

OK, fair enough. If he doesn't care about its value and has no intention of ever selling it or of becoming 'rich' from having owned it, what possible objection could he have to a capital gains tax on his never-to-be-realised-profit, even if the rate were one hundred per cent? He can always build a new one somewhere else. Hey, how about we allow everybody to build a house wherever they like, that'd be fair at least?

Answers on a postcard.