Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (225)

Somebody at The Unofficial Oxford United Forum reposted a pro-LVT article from The Guardian, and earned the following nigh incomprehensible response:

Presumably they would pay more up north as they have bigger gardens.(1)
Good ploy to enable more houses to fill up landfill sites.(2)
Hairbrained [sic] liberal socialist ideas.(3)

Very strange.

1) It's called Land (or Location) VALUE Tax. The clue is in the name, the value of a plot is not so much to do with its size (unless you are comparing it with other plots in the very near vicinity) as with its location. But I suppose this makes a refreshing change from "LVT is an attack on London".

2) LVT and planning regulations/restrictions are quite separate topics; LVT works conceptually and administratively with or without planning regulations/restrictions, and I'd hope that any rational local council would prevent houses from being built on land which is prone to subsidence (such as former landfill sites) anyway.

Either way, we actually happen to have plenty of housing, it is just very badly allocated because those who "got on the ladder" more than twenty years ago snaffled the nice big houses for themselves and then made bloody well sure than no new ones were ever built. Those people who are unhappy about paying more tax have a simple choice: trade down or simply allow more housing to be built, thus widening the tax base and reducing their own bill.

3) People have very little imagination.

It is perfectly easy to imagine a society where we have always had LVT as the only tax; people would get used to the idea; they'd save up more during their working lives if they want to stay put in an above average house in their old age instead of forcing subsequent generations to pay eye-watering taxes (as well as wildly overpaying for crap housing) to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed; various little wrinkles like quite how the annual revaluations would work would be ironed out etc.

Now, what if somebody came along and said, right, let's stop this LVT nonsense and tax people's earned incomes or profits at a marginal rate of about 50% and leave plenty enough loopholes so that the really rich don't have to pay any. Would the vast hard working majority not decry such people as "hare brained liberal socialists"? Would nobody point out that the result of this would be a return to a stagnant economy, high unemployment, tax evasion, the boom-bust cycle etc?

So if going from B to A is a truly shit idea, surely moving from A to B is a very good idea.