David, I have challenged you to cite academic papers that show that LVT, compared to the status quo, is less equitable, immoral or efficient. I have done so here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9913&page=7

Your alleged arguments perplexs me, actually. Your new counterargument is reduction of income tax is “But thats not guaranteed”. Of course not. HENCE, Bryan’s purpose was to educate us, inspire us, to prompt us to understand why it should be the case and to act on that. Moreover, Bryan’s key point is that the boom bust cycle in property will eliminate credit/tax-distorted inflated land prices (which you concede), increase economic growth and reduce inequality (and increase real wages, wages diverted into saving and consumption, not debt repayment). I find these premises sound. Please identify which other parts (as you endorse premise-1) you disagree with, and explain why they are wrong. Indeed, Bryan advocates not "much less", but no income in the long run. You have shifted away from debating the pros and cons of LVT, and instead questioning whether income tax will be removed.

The reference to an English landowner ( an important chartacter in Australian/economic history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon_Wakefield) meshes with Bryan's allusion to J.S. Mill (who gave an exact example, curiously, of the same person in question) – I imagine the treasury officials, myself included, (I and my colleagues are generally well-versed on economic history), instantly recall Mill’s “[psychotic] landowners grow rich in their sleep” quote. I hope this historical information helps you understand Bryan’s charming sense of irony; Bryan’s only fault is assuming his audience know history/philosophy.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/wakefield-edward-gibbon/1

Again, this seems back from Locke and Mill who adopted a ‘use it, or lose it’ approach to property rights (particularly, in items which are inelastic/fixed).Thus, there are efficiency and equity grounds (land is withdrawn for the sole purpose of waiting for a capital gain, at the expense of cheap housing, increasing sprawl and infrastructure taxpayers much pay for). I agree- we spend too much money for such services. Hence, LVT ensures the rich stop dictating space and the poor being trapped in it.

PS On vacant housing:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/04/06/steve-keens-debtwatch-no-33-april-2009-lies-damned-lies-and-housing-statistics/

I read the first article on this land tax issue - and it almost convinced me. It was pretty cogent and generally well argued.

But from an advocacy perspective this one leaves me a bit cold. Its too strident and too harsh at times and I didnt really get the relevance of the Wakefield story.

Yes, it was a slightly visceral rant, Lucy, but hopefully it was nonetheless fact-based. It was taken from my blog which is my cleanse, my only catharsis from the sociopathic neo-classical economics in which we’re hopelessly enmeshed. (See? I’m at it again.)

David Jennings is able to draw the curious conclusion that I am against the Torrens title system (which I didn’t mention at all), yet neither he nor ‘Examinator’ seem to want to acknowledge that Wakefield’s policy for colonisation, i.e. keeping a class of people in subjugation, is both entirely in keeping with his other sociopathic behaviours and also with current day policy-making.
I would have thought that changing a tax regime that slaughters wage and salary earners, yet rewards mindless speculation, amounts to changing “the system”, ‘Examinator’? And a soundly-based economics is indeed predictive. Refer http://lvrg.org.au/files/coming-kondratieff-crash-2001.pdf

IMHO, your father shouldn’t have stolen so much of EG Wakefield’s dad’s valuable time, ‘JS Mill’, because he let young Eddie Gibbon become impossibly wanton. I agree with you, however, that municipalities have strayed into areas they shouldn’t. That they often invest ratepayers’ funds where they oughtn’t will probably come to light in a year or so, too.

Thanks for introducing some measure into my argument ‘AustralianWhig89’. I can only say that the Wakefield resume to which you refer is one of the more generous I’ve read. Wakefield even voted against one of his own motions in the New Zealand parliament because the Governor had expressed an opinion to someone else before he expressed it to him; defaulted on paying his labourers working on his private company’s subdivisions in NZ, but managed to get them paid out of the colony’s funds, etc. He’d match the worst of our rogue politicians, and then some. Yet a few of our older history books treat the unfortunate madman as a god. Why? New Zealanders should thank his foil, Sir George Grey, for having had the courage to stand up to Wakefield’s brigandry

Well Bryan for my 2 cents: I think you may have a point on land tax but the only way to get it across is to do it with as much moderation and civility as possible. Think of it as an exercise in convincing a sceptical audience. The more balanced and reasonable you seem, the more likely you are to win people over.

Could we attack government wastage first? Identify increases in public sector efficiency, then look to reduce taxation of all kinds as well as look for more efficient taxes.

the inmates are out in force this week i see.