if you ignore economic logic, the fact is that the largest chunk of food prices is earned by supermarkets as pure profit. Out of 1 spent in the supermarket, the farmers probably only get 20p, so even if they managed to increase wholesale prices to 25p, the 1 final selling price is also fixed (by the market) and supermarkets will just have to live with lower profits, see if I care. Newsbot9 No, he sells the house, after evicting the tenants, to a major land-holding company. Moreover, you're overlooking the flaw in your plan that everyone needs accommodation, and we have a critical shortage of such. And er...no, you need to eat too. Moreover, the Supermarkets will simply raise their prices. Again, this is something based on need, you can't forgo food. We're not talking 25p for the farmer, we're talking 30p simply to cover the LVT, before the 20p former costs... Newsbot9 Because you stated that "households" would have a tax offset at the median, so households would pay tax only if above it. "All LVT proposals are broadly the same" Really? So, all "proposals to move things" are the same? Nope. They're all different, but none of the ones I've seen address this properly. You're the one arguing magic about different scenarios conflated, not me. "He cannot add it to the rent" Right, in your world he'll eat a major loss every month, because the tax which was formerly paid by the tenants is now paid by him.