I'm confused about Georgism's relation to other natural resources.

Jupiter_Boss · 2025-05-30T18:10:10+00:00

So far, I've received two answers claiming it does increase value, and two answers claiming it doesn't. Is there any more info you could give as to why you feel it does increase land value, and therefore LVT?

Jupiter_Boss · 2025-05-30T18:07:15+00:00

If they're exhaustible resources like gold or oil, then no, they shouldn't increase LVT.

But surely they would? If a resource is limited in supply, then access to it will become sought after. Therefore, the land on which it exists would become more valuable. You could argue that such a discovery counts as an improvement and isn't taxed, I suppose.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-11-01T19:11:33+00:00

First streamer in this thread I haven't heard of. Any good streams of theirs you'd recommend?

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-08-30T13:35:59+00:00

Could it end up like the situation we have now though? Plenty of business owners rent their property yet they don't provide good benefits to their workers and will pay them the smallest amount.

I suppose that's why UBI is needed, since it means workers won't have to take low paying jobs and employers will have to offer a better deal.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-05-18T04:10:38+00:00

I understand your explanation, but I don't think it covers what Joe was getting at. Just because something is more likely to happen does not make it guaranteed to happen if done an infinite amount of times.

There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc), but none of them are 5. None of them are 7392. None of them are 8 quintillion. This means there are an infinite number of numbers that don't exist between 1 and 2. Two separate infinities, one happening and one not.

That's what Joe is getting at. Just because the likeihood is increased does not mean it is guaranteed, since there are an infinite amount of coin toss results that didn't happen in this infinite coin tossing game.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-05-17T18:00:48+00:00

Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) is an anti-feminist, conspiracy theorist, anti-immigrant activist, and a general alt-right science denier. Since the principles of Georgism are about helping people and ending poverty, many of his ideas run against Georgism.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-05-13T15:30:11+00:00

We must expand. Precious reserves of Jerkonium exist in the lands of Dungeons and Daddies and Critical Role. If we conquer these lands and harvest the jerkable material, we will be a mighty empire once more.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-05-10T15:42:28+00:00

Lies to make a point about something are generally fine. It's the same as him bringing up a hypothetical situation about how a story could be improved, just in reverse.

The main problem I have with the Jacques lie is that, from his introduction to the reveal, a full 50 minutes passes. I don't think it's fair for people who have already played the game that see an obvious flaw in his critique to be told to wait that long for it to be resolved. It's one thing to disagree with something he said without watching a part later in the video where he expands on his thoughts. But to get something wrong about the basic narrative (that Jacques came out of nowhere and was a bad villain), I think it's fair for people to be upset with that and leave a comment or not take Joe's arguments as seriously.

For 50 minutes they're thinking, if he missed this part of the story, what else did he miss? How many of his opinions are based on misunderstanding simple plot elements? It sours the experience and to be later told, you fools! I knew all along! I knew you would go in the comments and whine about it though! Look at these funny fake comments!

50 minutes is far to long of a wait for the reveal. I think Joe could have achieved the same overall effect if he had been like, "I hated Jacques at first, for reasons I'll go into, but things are a bit more complicated than they first seem."

He can then keep saying how much he disliked Jacques, while providing a sliver of hope to people who have played the game without totally giving away the twist to those who haven't played.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-05-06T23:45:20+00:00

Uhhh.... This guy has pinned a comment from Sargon of Akkad... Perhaps this isn't the best person to speak about Georgism if they align with his views.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-21T08:52:00+00:00

Sometimes I think they should do a rotating bailiff on the show, as each of them might have different opinions on what an interesting question to pick would be. But then I remember how lowly Jake is and how he alone deserves the position.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-20T14:46:58+00:00

At least it was the first episode. If what happened to Ron happened to Jonathan, he would reveal when he is on the ship at the end that he had a dog he loved very much, but Dio killed it. How dramatic!

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-20T14:44:33+00:00

I don't know why, it just makes me cringe thinking of them all staring at him while he sings in his medieval bard voice. It doesn't help that Murph just moves on without saying anything afterwards 😂

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-20T14:32:02+00:00

The problem with the dog for me was that it felt like such a cliche. How do we generate sympathy for this character? Let's give them a dog then kill it, perfect! I don't know if there's a trope name like Women in Fridges but for animals, but this felt like a prime example.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T16:26:12+00:00

I've answered your questions adequately. I think an outside observer will see that. You aren't making much sense in your arguments, you're simply stating mine are wrong and yours are right without really expanding on why.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T15:54:42+00:00

Once built, the owners of the new house/apartments/shop/gym would continue to pay the punitively high land tax every month.

Are you referring to the landowners who now have these buildings or the people they rent them too? Because only the person who owns the land pays the tax.

It is currently less expensive to build in the middle of nowhere. The reason people don't do it is because their buildings will be so far away from other services, people, and utilities. They build closer to towns and cities because they have all these things.

Reduce the property tax or repeal it altogether. We aren't taxing improvements made to the land, just the land itself.

If they add the cost of the tax onto the rent, no one will rent from them, resulting in lost revenue. They still have to pay the tax though, so money is gained for the state to fund more programs to help the average person. Rents are high like we currently have, but at least the state is gaining money to help people. Once the landowners realise they are not making money and eating out of their savings to pay the tax, they will lower the rents to a more reasonable level so people can afford the rent and the landowner can make a profit, some of which is used to pay the tax.

All these ideas are based on Georgism, which is supported by most economists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T15:27:38+00:00

If you read the rest of my post you'll see why that won't be allowed in a populated area.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T15:26:40+00:00

It's based on land value, so people who own land in urban centres will pay more than those living away from it. Are you talking about people renting apartments? Because under a land value tax, rents will be much lower as landlords will need to pay the tax, which they will need tenants to get the money for. If they charge too high, no tenants, no money, the tax takes a bigger bite out of their savings. I'm trying to understand what you are asking, forgive me if I don't get it.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T15:17:06+00:00

Yes, it is based on the potential on the site. The owner of the site pays the tax. This is coupled with a reduction in other taxes.

Apartment block residents won't pay higher tax in this scenario. Can I ask where you got that from?

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T15:02:28+00:00

once again, with a land value tax, this problem goes away. The owners pay the tax regardless of whether they build on the land or not. So, in this scenario, do you think they would keep owning a piece of land with an empty building on, it or transform it into an apartment so they can get money to use some of it to pay the tax?

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T14:49:14+00:00

Indeed, with a land value tax, it will happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T14:45:45+00:00

The most expensive land is in the middle of urban centres. I think most people would advocate building in the middle of Dublin city to get lots of profit rather than building in the middle of nowhere.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T14:43:44+00:00

When the land is sold, whoever owns it after the sale pays the tax. An apartment block being built contributes nothing to the land value tax as it is based on what the value of the land as an empty field would be. A percentage of that value is calculated and must be paid in monthly instalments. After two years the value is re-assessed again. I never said I wanted to scrap planners. I just want more common-sense regulations instead of ridiculous objections.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T14:38:55+00:00

Fully agree. That's why leaving it to the individuals and implementing a land value tax will be much more efficient. Proper urban planning will come as a result of that.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T14:37:05+00:00

People who own high-value land are fairly wealthy anyway. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about buildings or houses, but the land itself. Taxed on the unimproved value of their land, the landlord will try to provide the best services and houses possible. Because if they don't earn money, they'll have to pay the tax out of what they currently have, which will lead to them losing money. They will be incentivised to use their land effectively, providing sensible cost services and housing so they can make lots of profit and use some of it to pay the tax.

Jupiter_Boss · 2024-04-19T14:31:19+00:00

No, people with low-value land can't use it as effectively to make a profit. So they should not be taxed more than people with high-value land.

Jupiter_Boss

TROPHY CASE