Land Value Taxation : honest look-at-the-facts rather than unjoined-up thinking , dismissive intolerance of valid points within alternative perspectives (hysteria!)

[Mark Brown]

I accept Tony's views, but they do not address how and by-what means we get
to a situation of community ownership.  I'd argue that a more realistic &
truthful statement would be to say : "transition via diverse means towards a
different approach to land ownership, with the ideal being communally
accepted right of responsible and sustainable land use".

LVT could be used in-part to achieve these ends (by having tax over land
above certain size).  Such a land tax has to be based upon 'Plan-led' market
value (therefore, a strong, consistent planning system). Infact, we can
argue from an environmental point of view that ALL land-area designation
should, infact, adhere to sustainability criteria.  Meanwhile in terms of
brownfield sites, the 'Henry George Association' view (vulgar, despicable
people who do not have a shread of wisdom worth listening to) is possibly
that shared by Tony Vickers who said recently, "vacant land in cities,
designated for affordable housing, will raise in value, cost a lot of money
to keep empty and give its owner an incentive to develop it".

None of this distracts from 'Operation -disconnect from Babylon', since the
"Tax" need only apply to grotesquely large holdings of land.  Simply, LVT is
one tool to be used to break up land monopoly.  Otherwise, how else do we
propose to do this, apart from simple land reform?

Tony is right that the system is corrupt.  Therefore, the above needs to
happen alongside the required reform of the debt-based money system.  All
land-values, taxes and credits are farcical within the current system of a
privately-owned central bank-run money supply, of dubious-reserve.

The fact that the system is corrupt does not mean that some of these tolls
are potentially valid, however.

Mark