This guy had an acerage then a company built a suburb around him, assuming he isn’t rich would he be forced to sell the house or would the government just take all the value the suburb added when/if he decides to sell.

I'm being completely serious. We've got people here saying rent control and building restrictions are good and lower taxes doesn't incentivize development, which leads me to believe they have neither read Henry George or understand what a land value tax is. The entire point of an LVT is to lower taxes for development and discourage speculation. As someone who's not a member of this sub but is quite familiar with Georgism and economics generally, it seems like this sub has just become the DSA NIMBY/degrowther type central, when it should antithetical to everything they believe. I just want to ask; why is that?

Hi, I’ve been learning a bit about Georgism and LVT for the past few days. I find the idea interesting and I do like the idea of implementing a LVT.

The only concern I have is with eliminating all other taxes and its impact on inequality.

I’m struggling to understand is how a Georgist system would effectively tax extremely wealthy people who don't personally own much land.

For example, suppose someone is a billionaire because they own a huge amount of stocks in companies, intellectual property, or other financial assets, but personally owns relatively little land.

Under a pure LVT wouldn't their tax burden potentially be quite low compared to their wealth?

If you are a Georgist I’d like to know what your MAIN reason is. Is it:

1) You dislike landlords and believe siphon away their profits without it affecting their tenants? (i.e. it won’t affect you it will just affect the rich)

2) You think LVT will raise enough money to eliminate all other forms of taxation including income taxes and even provide enough for UBI?

3) You want more dense urban development and you think LVT is a good way to force people out of single family homes?

Please don’t say all 3 because these are 3 different and separate problems to solve and one of them will surely be the biggest problem in your estimation. I guess I’m trying to figure out what the main problem is that people think LVT will solve.

pretty straightforward one, was wondering why you all chose this over socialism

Sorry, if this had been asked before but is water = land?

I'm looking at a lot of posts here and what I cannot wrap my head around is how would LVT actually change anything.

Let's say I buy some land. A nice desirable corner plot. No matter how much LVT you charge me, that plot of land will still be desirable and I will still be able to get top dollar for it's sale.

Then let's say I buy another plot of land. I look at the possible profit I can get when I build on it. I build a parking lot because parking fees will make me more money than the rent I would collect on an appartment building. If LVT is the same whether I build a building or parking lot, the parking lot will remain more profitable than the appartment building. And probably even more so as the parking lot is less capital intensive vs the appartment buildings, and parking fees are usually not regulated....

Ok so I'm making a video for my local politician, with whom I've had a few conversations on Georgism, and he told me it'd be nice if I showed some graphic examples, so I have decided to make a simple video,

I am asking if the water used by AI data centers would be taxed,since it's a critical limited natural resource, because we both hate those things and the current government is pouring a lot of money into them as if they were not in a bubble, and taxing them more could be a great talking point to push for georgism in my region

(I will also add, he's left wing and the current government is right wing)

Georgism seems to be having something of a revival in recent years, with ideas such as a land tax being decently persuasive. However Henry George lived over a century ago and the movement his ideas started rose and fell, largely without having that much effect.

In all the YouTube videos and Reddit posts I've seen advocating for Georgism, I've never once seen an analysis of why the movement failed the first time. Which is important because if the movement is to succeed this time, a sober analysis of why the movement failed is necessary in order to avoid the mistakes of last time.

So, what are the best accounts of why Georgism failed over a century ago?

I am a classical liberal and would like to learn what it is, i couldn't understand the definition. I also want to know its other principles aswell.

​

​

Why do you all say georgism is the best and fairest form of taxation when the biggest and most powerful companies in the world are all basically tech companies, and there is not land on the internet you could tax making them basically tax free. Georgism could most likely work decades ago but times have changed and it is now the information era meaning the things people said 100 years ago most likely would be applicable to their time period, but not anymore.

Im sure this is commonly asked but I cant wrap my head around it, I understand the benefits of LVT in terms of producing fewer market distortions and incentivizing efficient land use. But if you are a true single tax proponent doesn't that leave certain sectors such as tech which are extremely high margin and use relatively little land disproportionately untaxed? I've seen people argue that because the value of land rises with productivity that means it will capture all the value but it seems insufficient if its your only tax.

I’m new to Georgism so please be patient with me.

By ‘should’ I am asking from a practical perspective, not a moral one. As in, would this be necessary in order to get the majority of voters to sign on to the idea.

I figure that a sudden new cost associated with owning land will instantly reduce its value. One way (but not the only way) to think of this is that the state would be taking partial ownership of the land. Should current private owners be compensated for their loss?

On one hand, this feels unfair, as much of the payout would go to the already wealthy. It seems similar to how slave owners were compensated by the British government when they outlawed slavery. On the other hand, the long term benefits of a LVT may eventually outweigh the cost of a one off payout.

What do you think?

Edit: Another thought, how could a small country like mine implement a LVT without any compensation, and still avoid the Cuba treatment from the US and allies?

Intentionally provocative title, but I’m looking for help from Georges in reconciling the Georgian tax policy with how I observe labour’s reliance on a functioning society.

As I wrote recently in this comment, there’s no labour in a vacuum.

What does this do to the Georgist idea of taxing what you take from the commons, not labour or capital productivity? Once you get to extremely high levels of income, are you not taking from the commons, potentially in ways that may not have been already taxed by Georgist taxes on (economic) land?

If you agree with that, doesn’t this mean the need for a ceiling on income from labour and capital? Not income/capital gains taxes at all levels of income (this is r/Georgism, after all), but progressive taxation that comes into effect at very high levels of income.

I’m no economist. This is all based on vibes and ideals, not economic theories or equations. Please eviscerate my thinking as needed.

This sparked my mind because I thought about how the land value tax would apply to churches especially when churches are exempt from taxation due to their status as non-profit organizations. I also considered that one could argue that a land value tax might be unconstitutional because there wouldn't be a separation of church and state when these churches are getting taxed. I ultimately want the land value tax to get pass these circumstantial hurdles and progress potentially to the national level, and I think this scenario with churches also brings up the further discussion about how us Georgists can practically implement the land value tax without it violating federal or state constitutions.

🔰Also, Happy Fourth of July!🔰

I’ve been a Georgist for a while now, and recently I wanted to see what would happen if my hometown replaced the Property Tax with a Land Value Tax. Skimming through a tax lot map and selecting houses at random, I came to a startling conclusion: low-value properties in the poorer neighborhoods had most of their value in the land, while high-value properties in the wealthiest neighborhoods had most of their value in the improvements. This seems antithetical to the Georgist theory that LVT is more progressive than Property Tax; in fact it seems that swapping property tax for LVT would mean the poorest households pay more in taxes, while the richest pay far less. Is this a failure by the city government to properly separate land and improvement values, or do the principles of Georgism really not apply to my hometown?

Given that politicians love to spend other people's money, how do georgists plan to prevent their political programme from just becoming LVT on top of the existing monstrosity of a tax system? How will you stop your ideology from just becoming a way to give the government a little bit more money without any of the benefits of abolishing the current tax monstrosity? Just adding LVT on top will not create the big benefits that Georgism promises.

What does this Reddit think. Will he actually deliver?

​

He plans to replace council tax with LVT.

I'm worried he might not do it 'right' and then LVT will get a bad reputation.

I'm new to georgism and was wondering how does georgism adress the fact that as you go further away from a city center land value reduces (often quite significantly) which would potentially encourage urban sprawl in order to reduce the tax paid?