But the trouble with "economic liberalism"...

Firstly because it should be at number 1 :)

Second, whilst it would no doubt have the effect you intend about building more homes, it's not the reason to implement LVT per se. From a liberal perspective, LVT should simply be implemented, in place of other taxes, because land, location, call it what you will, is monopolistic and reduces the return to labour and increases unearned wealth.

I would, therefore, collect all land value as annual rent and be able to abolish income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, national insurance, except perhaps for a high band income tax to account for the existing concentration of wealth often gained through monopolistic practices, if unknowingly.

I would want, with Henry George, to "predistribute" that land rent without government spending any of it if possible, in the form of a Citizen's Income. So basically saying that the wealth we all contribute to just by intermingling in society and by renting out the common assets is what should provide the social safety net of a (admittedly very) basic living.

Beyond that, if there are any little bumps left in that otherwise level playing field localities should be able to raise from their wealthier residents (or perhaps by other locally determined means) a little bit extra to top up certain funds for those unable to work to top up their citizen's income for specific things like their kids education or their own or their kids healthcare.

The unearned profits arising from enclosing the common assets, combined with the imposition of tariffs/taxes on economic activity like labour and capital investment is reckoned by some to inflict a deadweight loss on the economy of around 33% of GDP. The Citizen's Income would allow you to revoke things like the minimum wage because it would allow people to choose how much or how little to work to lift their standard of living above the bare minimum.

Now *that's* a difficult sell when 70% of the population believe their home is their biggest investment as opposed to their main cost of living. Unfortunately, it's an investment in others' labour and neediness.

On the Olympics, I agree that it is now a complete fiasco. But in a fiscal regime as outlined above, it could have been paid for by hypothecating some of the land value increases that it has given rise to. Unfortunately we have already capitalised those rises into the pockets of the land owners from whom much of the site has had to be bought and others who benefit will not be troubled for what they gain.

I agree that VAT is probably the worst tax we have from the point of view of tariffs and trade.  And I would love to get rid.  And I suppose this is less of a concern to you Mark, but isn't VAT basically the one tax we have that is quite tightly controlled by Brussels?  Could one persuade Europe to adopt a different tax to fund its activities?  Actually I would probably give the ECB seignorage rights and let those fund the EU if it was needed.

Of course in any such budget - Tom's or mine, we'd be the only country in Europe that was truly Free Trade!  So a. would we want to be in such a protectionist club, or b. could we wreak such a change across Europe? 

As I understand it our EU "dues" are nominally at leastpaid out of VAT?  And they only take up a very small percentage of the VAT take.  If we could reduce VAT such that it only raised our EU dues that would be something!

Mind you, didn't even Adam Smith support a "luxury" goods sales tax after a fashioin? And lots of think tanks who are otherwise economically liberal seem to support sales taxes - eg the ASI proposing a local sales tax (presumably on top of VAT) instead of Council Tax.

I can never understand though how a Free Trade union could support such an obvious tariff on trade as VAT.