There was another good (as in 'really bad') argument against LVT in this article in Forbes:
I think a good comparison, and indeed a related phenomenon, is the agglomeration effects of urban labor markets. It’s not clear where these agglomerations rise from specifically, and empirically it’s difficult to measure an individual’s contribution.
Yet the total effect of this agglomeration on total U.S. output and productivity is huge, and it is ultimately made up from the choices of individuals to show up and participate in these markets.
The difficult empirical measurement of rents in this context, and the economic importance of the total spill overs, mean we should be very hesitant about trying to tax away the individual rents any one individual accrues from showing up.
Does this man even think about what he is saying? Does he not realize that he has demolished his own argument?
1. He is right to say that the rental value of land arises mainly from 'agglomeration' effects, i.e. private efforts, with the government playing an enabling rôle (roads, public health, public transport etc). The question is, should this be collected by landowners or collected by the government in order to reduce damaging taxes?
2. The total agglomeration effect is easy to measure - it is the same as market rents, and no, we don't have the foggiest idea how much each individual adds to or subtracts from the total value, it's like twigs on a fire, you can't light one or two twigs, but chuck those two on a roaring fire and it will burn even hotter.
But so what? The tax is not on the overall temperature of the fire, and not on 'by how much hotter is this fire now that we've chucked those two extra twigs on'. The overall temperature of the fire is easy to measure and the second question is a philosophical question as much as anything.
3. Remember that all these individuals are currently paying income tax; each one has to declare his income and pay tax on it; income tax has the effect of depressing reported and actual incomes for obvious reasons. A newcomer has to report his own income as well as paying rent to incumbents.
4. So what happens if we replaced income tax for that city in its entirety with a Poll Tax? That gets rid of the disincentive to earn more or to lie on your tax return. Above average earners would be laughing, but below average earners would not so many low earners would be forced to move away, which is not good.
5. But we can make the Poll Tax more progressive by having Land Value Tax instead, where you can choose how much tax you want to pay i.e. by choosing a mansion in a nice area or sharing a flat in a tower block in a cheap area? Poor Widows In Mansions would move away, freeing up space for more workers. Averaged out, it is clear that working people's total tax bills wouldn't change much, but tax paid as a % of total income would go down (win) and the new Land Value Tax would not be a disincentive to earning more, indeed it would be an incentive to do so (win), and newcomers would only have to pay quasi-rent (LVT) but not income tax on top (win).
Looks like a win-win-win to me.