Georgism speaks of the community benefit which a landowner reaps. But what if the landowner does not wish to reap the benefit ? In its own way, it limits the freedom of the landowner, in spite of LVT supposedly being less intrusive.

There is the issue of land ownership, and whether that is reasonable in the first place. Then there is the increase in value which the community causes, which Georgist principles suggest we should capture.

If we allow private ownership of land, it is presumptive to think that everyone sits on land so that they can trade it for their own benefit. Some may wish to merely live there, and to force them to move is unfair.

Geonomists would claim we intrude on someone to make them pay income tax.

When is there an intrusion ? It depends on your outlook.

The underlying issue is the nature of private ownership of land. George seemed to have no problem with people _occupying_ land, but he did have a problem with them claiming the _benefits_ of that land.

Is just living at a location claiming the _benefits_ of that land ? Or, do we need to buy and sell land to claim the benefit of that land ?

If we say that LVT is a tax on people claiming the benefits of that land, then this is an area where things get complex.

_if_ someone owns land _and_ is obviously "participating in the market" and "obtaining financial gain" then LVT is an appropriate tax. Its just that we intrude on someone's privacy to assume this is the case.

But, if someone is just "living there", and settled with no expectation of taking advantage of the increasing price of land, and no want to participate in the improving quality of services around them, which happened without their endorsement or approval, it seems an intrusion to charge them based on the market price of their land.

If there is to be any consistency here about "intrusion", LVT must have two components : a first one, based on the benefit someone draws from the land in living at that location, quite separately to an increase in the land value while they have been living there. And second, a component relating to the increase in land value, if you participate in the market to any degree.

This issue has been addressed by others, where a deferment of the land tax was considered useful when you have pensioners or the like. But the two different components have not been considered in these previous analyses.

Hence, we come up with two land taxes : a first, based on the benefit which you gain by living at a particular plot of land, which is very much analogous to rates as they are paid now. This component could not be avoided. There would be a second component, more like the LVT the Geonomists advocate, which would reflect the increase in land value.

It should be possible to defer the non-rate land tax if you are an owner-occupier and conscientiously object to the tax. Such objection means that you are living where you are living, and have decided to "opt out" of the market, and are not planning to make a financial return on your property.

In this case, only when the property is sold would the land tax be levied, together with some nominal penalty to reflect you really should not change heart. This would make things complicated, and mean the positive effects on development resulting from a "year by year" tax are reduced, but it represents a desire to make the situation fairer.

We do not obligate a connection between owning land and participating in the market. To presume this is, in its own way, an intrusion just as income tax is supposed to be an intrusion.

Certainly, the "signal" elements of LVT are devalued. But, the positive "signal" effects were justified by Geonomists in terms of the fact there were no "moral concerns" with LVT, and income tax was much more of a "moral intrusion". Because it seems that LVT _is_ an intrusion, the justification for its "signal" effects are smaller.