lost me. Why would a household pay twice as much LVT as it had to by occupying two houses rather than one? The LVT is not based on "household income" the LVT is based on the rental value of the land. In fact it is rent. So explain why my wife and I (probably middle class by your standards and who are currently renting) would choose to rent two houses, when we only need one, and it's expensive enough paying the rent on only one? "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!" All LVT proposals are broadly the same, and i am more widely read in these matters than you are. Can you explain where the magic cut off point between middle class and poor is, and then explain why the effects of LVT are equal and opposite on either side of this arbirtary line? Poor people, by and large, pay rent. The landlord bears the tax. He cannot add it to the rent, because he cannot charge tenants more than they are already paying. His choice would be between have tenants, pay the tax and make a small profit, or demand an above market rent, have no income and just pay the tax. Consider: the interest which BTL landlords pay is pretty much like LVT being collected privately by the bank. If interest