suggested it wouldn't get buy-in from all political parties and so would be a non-starter. I hope this week's debate will have helped convince more Assembly Members it's a viable option and I urge them to raise it with their parties. I am pointing out that if you make it economically efficient for people to live in two adjoining houses to keep the "household" income down and minimise tax, then many middle class people will do so! The effect on the POOR will be different, of course, and a realistic LVT won't cause the situation above, because it's completely different from the actually proposed LVT's in studies and position papers! A LVT's effect will depend entirely on the level at which it is set, of course. Moreover, you are making the mistake of seeing the housing market in the UK as supply-driven. It's demand-driven, there is a critical shortage of houses! You are unable to realise that I am talking about two completely different scenarios, and your instantness that anyone, then use a Toff's sighoff. Well, that explains THAT then! ttp://profiles.google.com/gmwadsworth Mark Wadsworth JohnLVT, you are making a bold and valiant attempt here, but I think that Newsbot is what we would refer to as a "total lying idiot" and that we are wasting our time. Forget about being polite any more and pay him or her back in kind, teh glvoes are off. LVT on Farmland would be set FAR higher in the proposals I've seen. So, when the