No it isn't.

The person who called it a “garden tax” is Jonathan Harmsworth, the tax-avoiding, non-dom owner of the Daily Mail.

Jonathan is not resident in the UK for tax purposes but his residence in Wiltshire and Dorset has a 4,700 acre “garden” from which he extracts rent from those who work the land.

Council Tax is a tax on homes and gardens because it taxes "property": land and buildings.

You will not be charged more for a big garden and you can build what you like on your land - subject to planning permission.

However, if you apply for, and get, planning permission for a mansion on your big garden, then of course the value of that land will go up because people will pay more for it! It doesn't take a genius to figure that out!

It isn't disguised as anything!

It’s a tax on land value and many wealthy people invest in land to avoid tax and to take rent (or for status or for shooting or for fishing …) - so, in that sense, it is a tax on land wealth. However, LVT isn’t a tax on people, it’s a tax on the value of land - a thing which we, as a society, own and control.

We argue very strongly against direct wealth taxes because they don’t work, they are easy to avoid (trusts, leave the country, etc.) and almost impossible to enforce!

This, along with accusations of "class warfare", is the first insult thrown at those who support LVT. Winston Churchill supported LVT - so it is hardly class warfare!

The tabloid newspapers, owned by those with significant landholdings, claim that LVT is a "land grab" trying to seize land that has been "nurtured" for hundreds of years by monarchs, dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, barons and the newly rich.

This is a classic "shoot yourself in the foot" argument because it raises the obvious questions:

• "How did they get the land in the first place?"

• "Who has gone out of their way to exclude the rest of us from massive landholdings?"

• "Who has diverted roads, closed footpaths and built huge walls to prevent access?"

• "Who has turned large areas of moorland into environmentally damaged grouse moors?"

• "Who grabbed and enclosed common land to increase the size of their estates?"

• "Who destroyed whole villages to improve the view?"

• "Who has been living off the labour of others for hundreds of years?"

• "Who has made massive windfall profits by selling land for development?"

• "Who are the real land grabbers?"

LVT doesn’t take away anyone's freehold on land.

LVT doesn’t take away Peregrine Cavendish's 70,000 acres at Chatsworth and elsewhere - it leaves him free to use it and dispose of it as he wishes. (Actually, like most major landholders, he has buried it in a trust to avoid tax - but that is a separate matter).

Many (most?) of us aspire to own our own homes, our own little part of England.

Holding land is a privilege granted by society and we want land, our biggest national asset, to be looked after for the benefit of us all. Land has avoided tax for 1,000 years - we want to see it contributing to the common good through LVT.

Many of those supporting LVT have been very successful in business: inventing things, building up companies, employing people, exporting products worldwide - and paying their taxes! They are not jealous but they have a very strong sense of fairness.

No it doesn't.

In fact we specifically say so!

They can try but they will fail. Three things are against them:

• We can see land - you can't hide it in a tax haven.

• We know who the freeholder is - it's recorded by the Land Registry.

• There are no exceptions to LVT - nowhere, not for anyone.

Please see our article on "Taxing values, not land".

Corruption will lead to jail.

No it won't!

Landlords, as freeholders, will be paying the LVT and no doubt they will try to pass it on to tenants - who were previously paying Council Tax anyway.

If the LVT is much more than Council Tax (which it won’t be for the overwhelming majority of people) tenants may not be able to pay the full amount. The landlord has a choice: absorb the balance, replace the tenant (which is why tenants need better legal protection) or sell up - and every house sold means one more house on the market.

"Right To Buy" has transferred over 2 million homes into private hands and 41% of those are now owned by private landlords. Local Authorities (LAs) must be allowed to "Borrow To Build" and to use compulsory purchase of land to replenish our social housing stock.

Of course we need homes for rent - not everyone wants a mortgage for life, nor can they afford one.

LAs can add supplements to the LVT rate on non-primary residences (second homes, holiday lets, Airbnbs etc.) and use the additional revenue to build homes for rent.

This is a popular argument used by The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail - usually with emotive language: "war widow" or "widow of a fallen hero". It's not the widow's fault she's alone in a large house in Chelsea or the countryside.

The widow is currently paying Council Tax so at least part, if not all, of the LVT can be afforded.

Those who can't afford any increase over Council Tax will be able to defer payment until property is sold or transferred. This will be charge registered against the freehold.

No one will have to move home because of LVT.

LVT will be paid by the registered freeholder(s).

If the LVT is not paid in full, perhaps because one party refuses to pay or can't pay, a charge will be recorded by the Land Registry for the outstanding amount. When the two parties resolve their affairs they can pay the outstanding amount or it will be repaid the next time the freehold is sold.

Land always has value, it is a finite resource with multiple uses: agriculture, development, leisure and status.

The value of agricultural land went down when cheap food came into the country between the late 19th century and the start of WWII.

The price of land responds to the market. The price will rise if people want to buy it for speculative investment or status. When speculative investment falls land becomes available for those who wish to farm.

LVT will always bring in the tax we need because the LVT rate will change to bring in the required amount.

The benefits system is a spending decision - totally separate from how tax is raised.

LVT most be paid by the freeholder.

The benefits system has nothing to do with LVT.

• We, as a society, own all the land in the UK through "the crown".

• We, as a society, permit people to "hold" land under "freehold".

• We, as a society, control the use of land through the democratic local planning system.

All land will pay LVT no matter who holds it: kings, queens, dukes, marquesses, earls, viscount, barons, trusts, companies or the rest of us.

Those whose land has never been taxed, and the tiny minority who will pay more than 10% over what they pay in Council Tax, are often very powerful and they know how to use the media and politicians to get what they want.

However, it has been done before.

Mortgage tax relief was a hot potato, a no-go area for politicians, yet in the 1990s/2000s Conservative and Labour governments abolished it - today we wonder what the fuss was all about!

LVT will be phased in, probably over 10 years, to allow plenty of time for people to get used to it and for the property market to adjust. After all, adjusting the property market is one of the key steps in getting a wider spread of economic development throughout the country.

The distribution of wealth across England is skewed in favour of the South East.

The physical cost of building a house of the same specification is roughly the same throughout the country: bricks, concrete, paint, etc.

House prices are higher in London and the South East because the cost of land is higher - and demand is higher so developers can make higher profits.

Salaries are also higher in the South East and "London Weighting" is paid to many working in London. Both of these also push house prices up - just as "Help To Buy" pushes prices up and increases developers' profits.

Those in the South East will pay higher LVT than elsewhere because of the higher value of land.

LVT will be phased in over ten years to allow people and the market to adjust so there will be no sudden increase. Those who genuinely can’t afford the increase over Council Tax will be able to defer paying the balance until the property is sold or transferred. No one will have to move home because of LVT!

Businesses may decide to move jobs to lower cost areas. Government may decide to move departments to lower cost areas. Jobs may leave London which may reduce demand which may reduce land values which may make things more affordable.

It is difficult to pre-judge how markets will respond but LVT will certainly help to re-balance land values across the country.

The Utilitarian argument

"The most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number."

When a decision is made that brings the greatest good to the greatest number it is then down to mitigating the effects on those who lose out. Phased introduction and deferred payment will do this for LVT - no one will be forced to downsize or move.

Any change will have a negative effect on a minority but should they stand in the way of the best interests of the overwhelming majority?

What would you replace the Utilitarian principle with?

Yes we can!

Freeholders pay LVT - and we know where they are - it is recorded by the Land Registry.

The freeholder may currently avoid paying millions in tax as a non-dom, like Jonathan Harmsworth, owner of the Daily Mail, but they will still pay LVT!

The freeholder may be registered in a tax haven like Necker Island in the British Virgin Islands but they will still pay LVT!

Unpaid LVT becomes a charge (a debt with punitive interest) on the property until it is next sold or transferred.

Should the value of the lien exceed the value of the property it will be sold to recover the LVT due.

LA budgets have fallen by over 40% in real terms since 2010 when 36% of LA expenditure was covered by Council Tax. By 2024 Council Tax covered 56% of expenditure because government refused to raise national taxes This is why we have poor services and potholes!

Even under Council Tax LAs don't control their own funding - governments set caps and control grants.

Almost everything LAs have to do is determined by national legislation with governments imposing extra requirements without providing extra funding!

This led many LAs, desperate for income and desperate to keep Council Tax down, to engage in reckless and stupid investments and some of them went broke!

Most LA spending is on services determined by national legislation but demand for those services will vary between LAs. For example:

• LAs in rural areas have higher spending on roads - because they have more of them!

• LAs in rural areas have higher spending on bin collection - because communities are widespread.

• LAs in areas of deprivation have higher spending on social and other services relating to poverty and low incomes.

• LAs with more old people have higher spending on residential and nursing homes.

We need to determine what services LAs are to provide, calculate the cost of those services and provide LAs with 100% of the funding required to carry them out.

A government, influenced and funded by people paying more under LVT, may attempt to shift funding from national LVT to local supplements.

For example: local road maintenance could cease to be a legal requirement so funding would have to come from local supplements.

There is no simple way out of this - apart from changing the government or resolving things in the way that Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax was resolved - by riots in the street.

Our political system is openly corrupt with well-paid MPs and ministers taking “donations” and freebies from those who wish to influence policy. This problem has to be resolved.

No it isn't.

The Land Registry is a public body and records all transactions on land and property.

This information is already available online to anyone.

Actually, we do - and we can see it on a map - if we pay for it! Contact us for details.

The Land Registry (HMLR) holds records of freeholds and leaseholds covering 89% of England and Wales. Following a push by HMLR a few years ago most estates, large and small, have registered their details - to protect their freeholdings.

The remaining 11% is bits and pieces scattered across the country and could be covered very quickly and easily with a concentrated effort.

Obviously, we need this to be done before we can calculate the LVT rate.

No it isn’t. It has been done many times before - starting with the Doomsday Book of 1086!

Land is valued as soon as it is sold - the value is recorded by the Land Registry. Over time this builds up a pattern of land values across the country and modern Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can make this information available to us all on the Internet.

Other land can be valued by people who have been doing the job since 1868 - members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) which will also handle regular updates.

No it won't.

The total amount collected by LVT will match the amount raised by the taxes it replaces.

As with any other general taxes, it is up to the government to decide how much is raised by each tax - that's a political decision.

If LVT replaces only Council Tax the rate will be under 1% and over 85% of us will pay less.

In the future it might be worth considering which other taxes LVT could replace beyond Council Tax - perhaps those that fall more on the less well off than on the wealthy?

Real working farmers don’t need exceptions and tax break, they need support to grow food and look after the countryside! “Support” is a spending decision, it has nothing to do with taxation.

Those who hold land to avoid tax, or to take rent, don’t need tax breaks or our support.

Farming is a business and, as with any business, the market decides on prices

Please read this article about the future of the countryside. We are very much in favour of supporting small farms, tenanted or owner-farmed, and we do not want them swallowed up by agribusiness. However, support for farming, or anything else, has nothing to do with LVT.

Food security must be the number one priority for government. We cannot rely on cheap food from outside the country, nor should we be clocking up millions of air and sea miles to deliver it.

We must support farmers to grow food and the ending of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in 2023 has dramatically cut the incomes of many small farmers. BPS replaced payments from the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) after Brexit.

Ironically, about 50% of farmers supported Brexit and all the Conservative Secretaries of State at DEFRA from 2012 onwards were enthusiastic supporters of Brexit. Two of them, George Eustice and Owen Paterson came from farming backgrounds while the others, Liz Truss, Andrea Leadsom. Michael Gove and Theresa Villiers did not.

Many farmers are now regretting their decision:

• The vast majority (83%) said Brexit has been worse than expected. “It is not a good idea to cut ties with the biggest free-trading bloc that’s right on your doorstep,” said one north-west farmer.

• There was also a degree of enthusiasm to hold another referendum and rejoin the EU, with just over half (52%) supporting such a move.

• Failing that, 70% of farmers surveyed felt that the UK should at least rejoin the single European market – a figure that rose to 85% in the case of those working in the ancillary industries.

64% of the 22 million acres (8.9 million hectares) of agricultural land in England is farmed by tenant farmers. The Conservative Agricultural Act of 1996 removed the right of family members to take over a tenancy when the tenant died. This was done under pressure from landlords and new “Business Tenancies” are now for specified periods of time with no security of tenure. The same landholders who promoted this new arrangement are now complaining about having to pay Inheritance Tax.

As freeholders landlords will have to pay LVT which they will try to pass on to tenants via increased rent but a tenant who cannot make an income ceases to be a tenant and the landlord makes nothing. Like their tenants, landlords will no longer be paying Council Tax and they can probably cover the cost of any increase - or they can work for a living.

LVT will be an increased cost for farmer-owned farms - but they won’t be paying Council Tax on their farm houses.

As well as growing food our farmers look after the English countryside, one of our greatest national assets enjoyed by millions.

What society agrees to pay with grants and subsidies to ensure security of food supply and to maintain the countryside has nothing to do with LVT but In 2025 DEFRA seems to have neglected supporting farmers to grow food.

No it won't.

Farmers respond to the demands of society - as long as they can make a living

The value of land is what someone would pay for it and that depends on where it is and what it can be used for.

Land left unused will still be liable for LVT.

We, as a society, may decide to pay farmers a subsidy to grow food. We may give them grants to look after our countryside. These are spending decisions, nothing to do with LVT.

No it won't.

The argument goes that since LVT is paid on all land it encourages the best use of that land. "Best use" is interpreted as "most profitable" so every acre of land will be used for highly profitable housing.

This is nonsense.

Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire, may want to supplement his income by building an "executive style" housing estate in front of Chatsworth House.

However:

• He would never get planning permission.

• He has placed the ownership into the hands of a trust to avoid tax so it is a decision for the trustees - he is the Chair. The trust is also a charity for even more tax breaks.

Of course there will be an appeals procedure - that's only fair.

However, the experience of other countries is that the number of appeals is extremely low and falls dramatically after the first year

The yardstick is simple:

"what would it sell for if it came on the market - given where it is and what it can be used for?"

Politicians have a lot to learn from Richard Murphy but their blindness to alternatives means they carry on doing the same old thing - austerity and cuts to services - everything that has failed in the past to create a fairer society. By spring 2025 they seem to have favoured bombs over benefits!

Richard explains things in very straightforward language and we strongly recommend looking at his blog, his videos and his Taxing Wealth Report.

Richard rarely gets things wrong but he is completely wrong about LVT because he seems to argue against something we are not proposing and he doesn’t seem to have read these responses to objections.

We have read his stuff, carefully, and we agree with most of it (though we recognise that some of it is politically impossible) and all we ask is for him to read our stuff equally carefully - and with an open mind.

Click here to view his video about LVT then look at our responses below - we hope Richard changes his mind.

Our responses

• No one claims LVT is a universal panacea - in fact we specifically say the opposite.

• We don't claim wealth is derived from land, we agree with Richard that wealth is derived from labour - tilling the soil and making things. We go back as far as the Normans whose descendants continue to live the life of leisure from the rent they extract from those working the land. Everything, including financial services, feeds off the back of wealth created by work.

• LVT will always raise sufficient to match the taxes it replaces. If the value of land rises above the income required, the LVT rate will fall, if the value of land falls, the LVT rate will rise to ensure we get the income required. The calculation is simple.

• It is true that land value is not on Rightmove - yet.

  The Valuation Office Agency and RICS surveyors have been valuing land and property for over 100 years and they see no problem. Yes, there will be appeals until the system beds in - that's one of the reasons why LVT will be phased in over 10 years. Other countries have found that appeals drop dramatically after the first year.

  Many landholders who have voluntarily registered their land with the Land Registry have provided a "value stated" - others haven't. Places that have implemented LVT make land values openly and freely available online - so they will appear on Rightmove!

• We don't claim that LVT will make up for any specific "black holes" - or any other mad waste of money by government! The way governments spend is entirely independent of how taxes are raised. We do suggest that LVT could be used to replace property taxes because Council Tax is is grossly unfair.

• We assume that landlords will try to pass on the cost to tenants. However, tenants currently pay Council Tax so they will be able to afford at least part or all of the LVT. Landlords, as freeholders, will be responsible for paying the LVT - even if they can't get it back from the tenants.

  Landlords will lose tenants if they put up rents beyond affordable limits - some may decide to sell - adding more homes to the market.

  There are ways to solve problems in the rental market - and they have nothing to do with LVT.

  • Scrap "Right to Buy" which has destroyed our social housing stock.

  • Allow Local Authorities to build homes to rent - "Borrow to Build".

  • Allow Local Authorities to compulsorily purchase land at current use value - or at a multiple of current use value.

  • Learn lessons from Ireland: protect both tenants and landlords by creating a register of rental agreements or adding them to the Land Register.

• "Increased taxes on rents, increased capital gains tax, development land tax"? Yes, there are tweaks and exceptions that could be used to do all sorts of things - but they all end up increasing complexity and making it easier for tax avoidance advisors to drive a horse and cart through the tax.

  Simple is good, tweaks and exceptions are bad. No more jobs for lawyers!

  "Development land tax", in one form or another, has been tried many times since WWII and it has failed every time because property developers have deep pockets for lawyers and political "donations" and they always win when the rules allow exceptions. It is a once-only tax which is site specific: "how much should this site contribute before we give it planning permission?" so it doesn't deal with the long-term need to provide fairer funding for all local authority services.

• LVT is not "unknown, unproven and incomprehensible" - it is in use elsewhere and it works - as long as there are no exceptions.

  Anders Povlsen, the Danish billionaire who runs the Bestseller retail chain, is keen on environmental protection and holds over 220,000 acres in Scotland. He pay LVT - to Denmark. Danish families gain from LVT paid on Scottish land. The Danes don't have a problem getting their heads round land value.

  Everyone knows that the major component of house prices is the price of land. Everyone knows this varies from one place to another depending on "location, location, location" - just ask anyone in the pub!

• Yes, we have to mitigate the effects on those who genuinely can’t afford to pay any increase above Council Tax. However, the tiny minority that will pay more than 10% above what they pay in Council Tax will be very vociferous in their objections. They are usually people with great influence who know the right people in the media (some of them work in the media or even own it!) to attack LVT in any way they can.

  Jonathan Harmsworth isn't resident in the UK for tax purposes. This is strange because he holds over 4,700 acres of land in England (on which he is happy to take taxpayer handouts), including his residence at Ferne Park in Wiltshire, and he owns the i newspaper as well as the Daily Mail which he uses to describe LVT as "a garden tax". 4,700 acres is one heck of a garden!

  However, it is hard to argue against the Utilitarian Principle that the fairest way to proceed is the one that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. What would you replace the Utilitarian Principle with and why should the vociferous minority be allowed to stand in the way of a step towards a fairer society?

  LVT will need a two year planning period to value all land, to work out how much is required to meet the full cost of all Local Authority services and to see exactly what the impact will be on landholders and homeowners across the country.

  LVT will be phased in (Council Tax gradually goes down as LVT goes up) over 10 years to allow people and the property market to adjust. There will be no sudden increase over Council Tax - in fact the majority of people will see their charges go down, not up!

  Payment can be deferred for those who cannot afford to pay any increase over Council Tax. Any outstanding balance will be paid when the property is sold or transferred.

  No one will lose their garden or be forced to move or downsize because of LVT.