custardly@gmail.com

By definition any tax that disincentivizes a human input, like discovering new land and uses for it, is not a land value tax. Many people  causally assume that a land tax must somehow be bad or inefficient. They then concoct a tax whose incidence falls on land, labour and capital, call it a land tax, then proceed to beat up a strawman.  

Let's take Bryan Caplan for example. In his regime, landowners are required to self assess their land's value for the purposes of taxation, but must sell their land to anyone who puts in a higher assessment. Caplan then stipulates that the landowners valuation is made public knowledge and then proceeds... (read 1210 more words →)

As I said, 100% is the aim, if not a practical possibility. The effect on the amount people are prepared to pay to buy a piece of land is the same. Zero, or close to it.

Vacancies act to regulate the market. This being one instrument to set rents, thus maximise the income from land. So at any one time there will be a range of rental values collected (whether by private landowners or the state) from 90% to over 100%.

As it happens, with the current plethora of data we have now on rents, selling prices and vacancies its very easy to tax 90-95% of land rents. With dedicated computer modelling easy... (read more)