[stickyricky]

A land value tax is very common and is universal in the United States. It seems appropriate that those who own the exclusive right to use a parcel of land should pay a tax to the society who enables that exclusive right. If this land is as productive as you say ("if it's not earning a return then it's not happening") then it should be well within their ability to pay the tax. And if its not productive then you'll see land distributed from ineffective landlords to more productive individuals and businesses which can effectively manage the land.

You said it yourself Jeremy Clarkson's farm has only generated $2. If he paid a tax proportionate to his ownership of land he might consider selling that property to someone who could better steward it.

I pay LVT in the United States. I've owned three different plots of land in my life. At no point did this tax prevent me from acquiring land. In fact, it seems like it enabled me to buy this land because in the UK land ownership is significantly lower than in the US.

If land costs _nothing_ to own then it costs nothing to hold as an investment _forever_.

[stu432]

Well done you've just figured out why less than 1% of the population own most of the land.

[stickyricky]

I'm confused. Do you support LVT? I'm under the impression you don't. If England has no LVT and unequal distribution of land wouldn't that imply that LVT is not a prerequisite for that sort of distribution?