I've no doubt about the first part - ideally there would be severe reform of the UK tax system, but the chances of it happening are next to zero when we have a situation where the losers, however few, shout the loudest, and they are the ones listened to.
Unfortunately I can't disagree with you too much there because landowners are a significant portion of voters in this country, and because we're not starting from scratch like Singapore it's going to be a lot harder to implement. Indeed the power and influence of landowners might play a part in why it's not a very well known idea at all, and they'll fight tooth-and-claw to keep it away from Parliament.
But I'm not of the belief that it can't be done, especially with the majority that Labour currently have, it'll just take a lot of courage to make such a potentially unpopular decision. Or it could be very popular. We don't quite know yet since it's not very known to the public. But the right politician with a bit of charisma could probably sell it to a good amount of voters I reckon.
Take land tax as you suggest it, and in theory not the worst thing to tax. There are issues though. Farmland for example is valued a lot, lot higher than its economic value because the Dyson's and the Clarkson's of this world buy it up to avoid a lot of inheritance tax [and it still does that role for them, just not quite as much as before the last budget]. As soon as it is suggested that that cuddly Clarkson should pay his share of tax, and you can guess the media reaction. As well as farmland being at an absurd price level, of course the value of a plot of land can change radically overnight if it becomes part of a zone where housing is allowed, or gets planning permission.
I've often wondered whether farmland should have some degree of exceptions because it is crucial for a country's food supply, and food is an essential for quality of life of citizens. I do not have a definite answer for that.
Interestingly though I think the Clarkson and Dyson comparison is interesting because, if the tax were implemented, Dyson would have to either make use of this arable land or accept it as a net loss that he'll be paying for and can't move elsewhere. It lines up with the principle that if you're going to own this land that could otherwise be put to public use, you're going to have to pay for it, and how you do so is your problem.
For whatever reasons he bought it for, I at least have some respect for Clarkson actually making use of his farmland as well as bringing to light some of the issues that farmers have to deal with. Granted most farmers don't also have the financial backing of Amazon, but at least the land isn't just being sat on with Clarkson reaping the benefits of increased value without putting in any external contributions.
For a new tax on a new base it would probably take several years to value all of the land in this country. Given that we haven't had a council tax revaluation since 1992 because governments are worried about the losers [=those who have profited most from rising house prices] the chances of keeping land values up to date and thus the tax fair would I suggest be zero.
Land value tax should, assuming up to date valuations, be as simple a tax as can be. However, once politicians get their hands on it, it will become complex with deliberate loopholes, inconsistencies, stupidities, use for other objectives, etc., etc., as every other tax in this country. We have business rates which is taxing the property value which is in part dependent on the land value. We would presumably get rid of that and just tax the land value instead.
Land value tax would probably replace council tax and use the current bands to determine the rates. If not a complete replacement it might certainly have some degree of integration. There has to be room for pragmatism as there does with any tax policy, but land tax is arguably the most logical and most progressive form of taxation.
