The main thing to keep in mind is the market price for land under the status quo is completely screwed up. The market is pricing a whole bunch of monopolistic effects and other inefficiencies, including speculation. I would estimate speculation is probably 30 percent of market price in high-value urban areas. If you introduced a significant LVT, then people would be less inclined to speculate on land, and market prices would fall. Of course, if you introduced a full LVT, the market price for land would go to zero.

But if the market price for land is zero, that does not mean the land is worthless; it simply means the private market for economic rents is eliminated, i.e. completely socialized by a 100 percent rate of taxation. This is why we have to recreate a public market to price land values using either an auction or assessment or some combination.

You might be tempted to think, well, if the market price drops 30 percent from eliminating speculation, and the 70 percent is representative of location value and improvements, then wouldn't the tax revenues from LVT be less?

The important thing to remember is LVT is not based on the market price of land. LVT is based on the opportunity cost of excluding others from the location (as determined by equal competition for access, in the form of a public auction or assessment). There is no point in trying to work out what revenues under LVT will be by extrapolating from current market prices, because revenues under LVT amount to the total socialization of location values, whereas, conversely, the market price equates to the private market for the right to own rents. The 'true value' of land and the market price are diametrically opposed in this regard, in that the market price expands when private monopoly in rents grows, whereas the true value of land to the community increases when monpoly is eliminated and access is increased. Higher market prices are good measure of the inequality in an economy, but are not nominally predictive of land's true value.

What would contribute to land's value under LVT? Well, on the demand side, you would have relatively static factors like the size of the population; the elasticity of labor in the jurisdiction; the degree of inequality at the point of transition; as well as more variable factors, like how much of the capital in the economy is invested in rent-seeking versus productive wealth, and the elastisticty of capital. On the supply side, well, whatever land is within your jursidiction is what you've got to work with. So what would be the effects of a full LVT? Well, if capital is not invested in rent-seeking, then it has to be invested instead in business and industry. Investing in business and industry instead of rents is the equivalent to raising labor and capital at the macro scale, raising the demand curve for land and thus the true value of land.

But this is all slightly besides the point: LVT is the only efficient tax system. It is not a meaningful exercise to try to speculate on what revenues would be by extrapolating from market prices today. There are just too many fundamental changes through ATCOR and EBCOR to draw a meaningful comparison; and, even then, comparing market price to land value is inopposite. The bottom line is LVT will allow us to raise the maximum amount of revenues and in a fair and equitable manner.

P.S. We're also eventually going after the money monopoly. What does it even mean to say land is worth XXX dollars, when dollars are now a form of debt? Even if markets weren't screwed up by individual monopolies, they are pricing everything in a form of debt that is itself a monopoly. Monopoception.