Everybody has to live somewhere – whether as tenant or owner-ocupier. So everybody gets his (modest) Citizen’s Income (about £70 a week in my manifesto) plus he keeps the whole of his earned income (however much or little that is).

The LVT is a tax on the ‘consumption of’ i.e. the exclusive possession of land. So whether you are tenant or owner-occupier, you will end up paying or bearing the LVT bill for where you live (or the premises that you need for your business) – it’s about taxing substance over form. Whether the landlord ‘passes on’ the LVT to the tenant or whether the LVT is included in the total rent that a tenant pays anyway is neither here nor there.

You could argue that a tenant pays his landlord’s income tax bill under current rules, for example, because by definition, part of the rent goes towards the landlord’s income tax. So what?

I did not (I must confess) think you would reply.

So the tax would be 8% of the sale price (not the rentable value) – every year.

But in return there would no income tax and so on.

What about people like me – who own neither land nor buildings.

Would the council pay 8% of the sale price of this house every year?

Of course the sale price would tend to drop – once people understood they would have to pay 8% of the value of a house every year in tax.

But, on the other hand, you say income tax and VAT (and so on) would be gone.

So I am not going to just denounce you – you have a point of view, and it might be no worse (or even less worse) than the current system.

How irritating – Paul does not get to rant.

I can not rant – because I got a reasonable response.

This of course would mean an overall reduction in the tax take, but there would be a corresponding reduction in corporatist spending and state sector non-jobs.

The bit about America has gone in for “stimulus” but Britain has not – so we will be able to compare……

Actually the British budget deficit is at least as big (if not bigger) as a proportion of the economy as the American one.

The economy was already in decline last year – even BEFORE the tax increases came in.

No doubt the left will say the failure of Britain shows the failure of the “free market”.

“But Paul, if tax increases are free market you might as well call Herbert Hoover a free market person”.

That is exactly what the left do – and have done for decades.

False – but it is what is taught in the schools and universities, and presented in the media.

By the way – even Germany had a budget deficit of 3% of G.D.P. and is linked in to the insane Euro system (the bailouts are often to protect German banks who have lent money in markets like Ireland).

Still Germany is miles better than the vile line of policy followed in Britain and the United States.

The only good thing about Britain is that the labour market has not been as inflexible as I feared it might be.

Real wages have dropped – thus meaning truly mass unemployment has (so far) been avoided.

Not all of Mrs Thatcher’s labour market reforms were reversed – although (it should be remembered) that these reforms were really those of Norman Tebbit.

Before N.T. became Employment Secretary the government did basically nothing to reform the labour market – thus allowing MASS UNEMPLOYMENT because of the pro unionj laws that were in place.

The inaction of James Prior (and so on) was a terrible thing – truly terrible.

Some free market people attacked Tebbit (on Friedman grounds – that he was adding new laws not repealing old ones), but if the old statutes could not be repealed there were two choices.

Add new statutes to artificially weaken the unions (to counter balance the artficial strengthening of the unions by the old statutes) or do nothing.

And doing nothing (the policy of James Prior and so) meant leaving millions of people to decay in unemployment.

Must check out that Keynesians-v-Austrians rap on YouTube – it sounded surprisingly good.

However, there should been more of an attack on the idea that Roosevelt cured the Great Depression.

And the (leftist) biographer of Keynes should not have been given a large parts of the show.

There will be a collectivist show on next week – same time, same station.

Will large parts of the show be taken up with imput from a free market person?

I doubt it.

You have a limited amount of time – do not waste it giveing a platform for the left (they have all the rest of the time anyway).

I will not ask where you got that Hayek thing from – because I am not interested.

However, I am interested in one thing in relation to your proposed tax.

HOW BIG WOULD IT BE.

Say the rentable value of a bit of land was ten thousand Pounds per year.

Or the sale price was two hundred thousand Pounds (which ever way you want to do it).

HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOUR TAX BE?

I am NOT asking for you to justify your tax – or explain to me how it is the “least bad” (or whatever).

I just want to know how BIG this “Single Tax” would be.

Please tell me.

Do you really believe this!?

And not a peep from the Samizdatocracy!

Right I can listen to that – so I will.