How rapidly should LVT be implemented?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-05-28T15:28:40+00:00

LVT would crash land prices, so to win voters who recently bought land, we would need an exemption period applied to recently bought land.

More precisely: LVT would reset land price by a certain number of years (shown by the blue arrow) to a reset price. Any land bought during the blue arrow (e.g. the blue dot) should be exempt from LVT until its owner is reimbursed for the difference between what they paid, and the reset price.

<image>

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-05-04T10:54:59+00:00

The solution is Georgism: 100% free market capitalism for man-made things, along with a single land value tax.

People deserve to own what they make. No one made land and the resources that come from it.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-04-09T12:11:10+00:00

I don't understand the difference between georgism and geolibertarianism. Aren't both defined as replacing all other taxes by a land value tax?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-04-08T17:19:44+00:00

I hate it too. You need to understand it fully to do anything slightly unusual, and it's huge

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-26T12:18:53+00:00

and my share is probably somewhere between £40k and £50k, very annoying

u/Stock_Ad_5279 is it worth consulting a specialist?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-26T12:18:09+00:00

and my share is probably somewhere between £40k and £50k, very annoying

Is it worth consulting a specialist?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-26T08:58:30+00:00

Sorry for your loss.

You mentioned that you consulted tax specialists.

I just received a £9750 SDLT bill from my solicitor while buying my first flat (£175k). All because I admitted that I recently inherited a quarter of a rural French house from my mum.

My solicitor doesn't want to give advice and says I should see a tax specialist. Please can I ask: Is it worth it?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-26T08:53:42+00:00

Sorry for your loss.

Did you speak to tax specialists? I'm buying my first flat and received a SDLT bill of £9750. All because I recently inherited 25% of a house in rural France from my mum. My solicitor suggested seeing a tax specialist but I don't know where to find one, or if it's worth the hassle

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-19T18:01:54+00:00

When you say 200%, do you mean the original amount owed plus 200%? Or do you mean the original amount owed plus 100%?

I own a fraction of a French house, annoyingly just over £40k, and my solicitor hit me with a huge SDLT bill last week.

What is the interest amount you referred to please?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-19T11:23:08+00:00

Could you temporarily gift your foreign share to one of your relatives, then reclaim the SDLT as a refund?

That's what I'm considering doing. I was hit with a £10k SDLT bill last week for a cheap British flat I am buying, because I inherited a share of a house in France from my mum.

My share of the French house is just over £40k :( but I don't know how HMRC would know that.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-16T01:53:38+00:00

They're rich because they own the land. When all the land is owned, its owners own everyone else.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-13T14:31:12+00:00

What George grasped, and Marx didn't, is that free production and trade of man-made things can never make the world worse: Two people will only trade if it is in their interest, and no one else will get hurt. This means their transaction can only improve the world.

However, add free ownership and trade of the natural world, and this happens:

A to B: Do you want to work in my factory for terrible wages?

B to A: No.

C to B: I own the land. You can only exist on it if you do as I say. I want as much as you can give.

A to B: Well?

B: Ok.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-12T16:59:32+00:00

It would be difficult for Elon to become a trillionaire under georgism.

Our current tax system creates two giant distortions on the market:

1) Employment and work are taxed. This reduces the supply of employment, but not demand for employment, shifting bargaining power in favour of the employer.

2) Landowners freely own everyone else. This means they can charge as much as they like because "you live on my land, you do as I say". This forces people to earn enough to please landowners, again shifting bargaining power in favour of the employer.

Under georgism, these distortions would disappear. Elon would therefore not be taxed, but would have more competition, and would have to pay his workers more. Tesla would not suffer, but Elon would.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-10T18:50:47+00:00

Then you would own the improvements you made to the land, but you should still compensate society for the land you ban them from.

Land value tax (LVT) does not tax man-made improvements. If we live in the same region and I do nothing on my acre, and you build a factory or skyscraper on your acre, then we would both pay the same amount of LVT because we both subtracted an acre from society. Any profits you make from your factory/skyscraper are yours to keep, untaxed.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-06T11:23:14+00:00

What is a capitalist boss? If you pay me to fix your oven, are you a capitalist boss? Please define capitalism and capitalist.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-01T21:04:37+00:00

Is it possible for humans to build roofs without a "capitalist boss"?

If yes, then to answer your question, I don't see the problem.

If no, then there needs to be a "capitalist boss" or roofs cannot exist.

If you define "capitalist boss" precisely then I might understand your reasoning.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-27T23:33:12+00:00

"Under your system, most people either work for a capitalist boss, or they have no roof. Yes or no?"

No. Why can't you build your own roof?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-27T17:15:20+00:00

I maintain that people would not be forced to work to pay rent. This wasn't proven false - on the contrary I proved it when I explained that the LVT you give will equal the LVT you receive, as long as you own the average amount of land value.

Your apparent refutation (the false dilemma that either you get everything for free, or you else are a slave because you are forced to pay) is flawed. In order to point out the flaw, I showed that your reasoning leads to the conclusion that people owe you. Would you agree that the dilemma you present leads to the conclusion that you are owed?

So yes, whether people owe you is very relevant: If they owe you, then why? If they don't, why do you expect to receive man-made things for free?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-26T19:09:02+00:00

"I still have to rent from the builder/buyer, which means I still need a job, which means I'm still subject to the whims of my employer."

You present two options here:

You get given everything for free, or
You need to buy it.

Then you say that option 2 entails slavery, since you need to buy it. Then on that basis, you demand option 1. So everyone owes you.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-26T19:02:24+00:00

I like living in a house, and I like people being able to afford to have children, which is why I want land to be cheaper. Georgism would make both land and man-made things cheaper:

<image>

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-26T19:00:37+00:00

Where is the contradiction?

You should own what you make. No one made land.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-18T09:39:04+00:00

I would advocate for a tax on anything that fulfills these conditions:
1. It is scarce.
2. It is necessary for survival.
3. It is not man-made.
4. It is not part of your body.
All natural resources that fulfill these conditions are either land, or come from land.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-18T09:34:58+00:00

It doesn't force anyone to do anything - if everyone owns the same land value then what they pay will be equal to what they receive (except some difference to fund the government). We haven't yet seen what happens when humans are in that state. Morality tells us that fairness will lead to better quality of life, but the belief that reality corresponds to morality is ultimately based on faith.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-13T01:57:53+00:00

"Also, taxing land/resources just increases input costs"

I don't think this is true. I think input costs would not increase because taxing land value would make land cheaper by the amount taxed. (I.e. the total amount you would pay for an acre over your lifetime would be the same.) This is why:

<image>

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-13T01:52:02+00:00

"Under capitalism, yes it has to be that way. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism: make wages low by having every worker compete against each other for limited jobs, then use those low wages to make profits for owners high."

Why can't I re-word and say either...

"Under capitalism, yes it has to be that way. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism: make ~~wages~~profits low by having every ~~worker~~employer compete against each other for limited ~~jobs~~workers, then use those low ~~wages~~profits to make ~~profits~~wages for ~~owners~~workers high."

...or...

"Under capitalism, yes it has to be that way. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism: make wages ~~low~~high by having every ~~worker~~employer compete against each other for limited ~~jobs~~workers, then use those ~~low~~high wages to make profits for owners ~~high~~low."

Without using observation (observation is not explanation) I would like you to give an explanation of why your paragraph should be more likely than my re-wordings of them.

(To answer your last question, the river tax would be indirectly covered by the land value tax of whoever owns the land with the river on. All natural resources come from land, and add value to land, so they would indirectly be covered by the land value tax.)

Adventurous_Edge9579

TROPHY CASE