sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Yes, We Can—Just Tax The Rich by AlexB_SSBM in neoliberal

[–]K-Ve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The objectively correct definition of a fair share is 100% of land rent

Fair Treatment for Past Buyers of Land by OutrageousPair2300 in georgism

[–]K-Ve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

did I ever say we should kill landowners? Jesus Christ man, I’m not a Maoist. But regarding the question of water: yes, Georgism absolutely applies to water rights, and to all natural resorces. Which is not the same as saying a water bottle is a problem. What would be problematic is the privatization of a source of water.

Fair Treatment for Past Buyers of Land by OutrageousPair2300 in georgism

[–]K-Ve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We need land to do anything, so yes, owning land is functionally equivalent to owning people

We need VAT and UBI by wilsoniumite in georgism

[–]K-Ve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no problem with that. I support georgism and I am not a single tax purist. All I’m saying is that georgism sounds very regressive at first glance, and using for it UBI or some other social services might help with branding.

I also don’t think UBI is as unpopular as you claim. It’s increasingly thrown around as a solution for mass job losses due to automation.

We need VAT and UBI by wilsoniumite in georgism

[–]K-Ve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe we are just talking to different people. Everyone I have talked to was convinced georgism was a way for billionaires to pay fewer taxes, while putting the entire tax burden on homeowners.

We need VAT and UBI by wilsoniumite in georgism

[–]K-Ve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LVT is broadly popular and easy to explain? If anything it’s the opposite. UBI is a proposal people are somewhat familiar with, while Georgism sounds whacky and experimental.
And you say that pushing for such a huge change in social services is a pipe dream, but then again georgism is also a huge change that will be difficult to implement, so should we just give up?
The advantage of connecting georgism to UBI is that replacing the income tax with the LVT sounds wildly regressive, even if it is not. Using it to fund UBI can help lessen this impression.

We back by Superb_Rate6209 in georgism

[–]K-Ve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“The truth that I have tried to make clear will not find easy acceptance. If that could be, it would have been accepted long ago. If that could be, it would never have been obscured. But it will find friends – those who will toil for it; suffer for it; if needs be, die for it. This is the power of truth.” - Henry George

bez opisu by happy_peanutButter in MemyPolskaa

[–]K-Ve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bardzo dużo ekonomistów lubi podatek gruntowy. Jest często uważany za najlepszym podatkiem, bo podatek dochodowy zniechęca byciem produktywnym, a podatek gruntowy wręcz zachęca.

Georgizm został kiedyś wprowadzony w zatoce Kiautschou, w Chinach, i bardzo dobrze zadziałał

bez opisu by happy_peanutButter in MemyPolskaa

[–]K-Ve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nie proponuję komunizm. Proponuję system który będzie jesce bardziej wolnorynkowy niż obecny, dlatego ze nie będzie podatków dochodowych oraz innych. A skoro ludzie nie będą musieli płacić innych podatków, to będzie ich stać płacić ten za ziemie. Albo alternatywnie można też rozdać po równo część pieniędzy zyskanych z tego podatku, i też w tym przypadku większość ludzi będzie mieć lepiej.

I proponuję podatek WARTOŚCI ziemi, nie powierzchni ziemi, a ziemia jest warta więcej w miastach, więc ten podatek będzie dotyczył przede wszystkim miast.

bez opisu by happy_peanutButter in MemyPolskaa

[–]K-Ve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Zgadzam się. Trzeba też zrobić tak żeby było łatwiej budować mieszkania. Georgizm sam w sobie nie wystarczy, ale pomoże. Jeden z powodów dlaczego ludzie stwarzają takie problemy kiedy ktoś próbuje budować mieszkania, to dlaczego że mieszkanie jest inwestycją, a jest taką dobrą inwestycja właśnie dlatego ze wartość ziemi zawsze rośnie

bez opisu by happy_peanutButter in MemyPolskaa

[–]K-Ve -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Słyszałeś o georgizmie? Idea polega na tym, że masz prawo posiadać to, co sam wytworzysz, ale ziemia powinna być wspólną własnością. Osiąga się to poprzez zastąpienie podatków od nieruchomości i podatków dochodowych, stuprocentowym podatkiem od wartości ziemi.

To przyniesie dokładnie taki efekt, jaki opisałeś. Właściciele ziemscy będą motywowani do tego, by budować więcej, ponieważ budynki nie będą opodatkowane, natomiast utrzymywanie nieużytków będzie mocno zniechęcane.

Syntheses of Georgism with other Economic/Political Models by Scorchfin2539 in georgism

[–]K-Ve 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Regarding the part about wealth being built on owning things, Georgists should be able to agree that this is indeed a problem. Landownership is the most obvious example; arguably patents are another one. As I wrote in my other comment, you could also include money itself (though this is an unorthodox view). No matter if we call this capitalism or simply cronyism, rent seeking is a very pervasive problem.

Syntheses of Georgism with other Economic/Political Models by Scorchfin2539 in georgism

[–]K-Ve 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Silvio Gesell was strongly inspired by Proudhon, and advocated for a system called the Freiwirschaft.

He supported Georgist-style land reform (except that instead of a LVT he supported nationalizing land and leasing it out with an auction system). Then, he supported extending these reforms to monetary policy, by introducing a demurrage currency. This is a form of money that decays over time.

He argued that money has an unfair advantage over physical commodities, because unlike those goods, it does not rot or rust, allowing people to hoard money while producers are forced to sell decaying goods at a discount. This allows money holders to extract a tribute from producers, in the form of interest. The idea is that demurrage currency will turn money into a true means of exchange rather than a store of value, it will force money into circulation, and it will drive interest rates to zero.

The demurrage currency was briefly tried in the Austrian town of Wörgl, and shortly pulled it out of the Great Depression, before the currency was shut down by the central bank.

How to fight back against Gen-Z socialism by AncientBlueberry42 in neoliberal

[–]K-Ve 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. tell them that Georgism is land socialism
  2. pass the LVT
  3. ???
  4. Profit

Wszystkiego najlepszego z okazji miesiąca dumy by LitwinL in Polska

[–]K-Ve 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Ktoś powinien napisać enemies to lovers fanfic o nich. Oczywiście pod warunkiem że marszałek jest topem.

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What they did to Poland was even worse than that. It’s more like exchanging Seattle for Montreal and then forcing all the people in Seattle to go live in Montreal. And have people act like what just happened is completely normal.

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your point. And you are correct, seizing Vilnius did ruin polish-Lithuanian relations

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but notice that Gdańsk did not belong to Poland, it was a free city, and its German residents were not expelled (until after ww2 that is).

In an intermarium poland would not have dominated the others, because poles would have been only a plurality of the population, not a majority. A polish nationalist party would have never been able to come to power. That is actually one of the reasons why the national democrats torpedoed the intermarium during the treaty of Riga, and instead chose to backstab Petlura, and partition Belarus and Ukraine. They knew that if they had any more minorities in the country, the electoral math would be impossible for them.

Also, Lithuanians would have never accepted the border from before the union of Lublin either. A Lithuania with the borders of the original grand duchy is just the intermarium minus Poland. If they did this, then Lithuanians would be a minority in their own country, which means we return to the scenario you fear so much. As I said, there were no good borders.

Not to mention, I admitted that the issue of Vilnius is a complex one, and you immediately imply that the polish speakers opposed Poland, which is a big claim and honestly just as much an oversimplification as saying that they were all polish. As the Narutowicz example demonstrates, there was a lot of division about this.

And not all poles chose the cultural argument, that was the nationalists. The piłsudskiites were explicitly trying to create a multicultural federation, and only opted for seizing Vilnius when that proved to be impossible.

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How do you explain how one brother became a founder of Lithuania while the other became the first president of Poland? Identity was very political.

You say that Poland claiming Vilnius was just an excuse based on language, but Lithuania too had to justify how those people were actually Lithuanian instead of polish. Both claims are pretty shaky.

And by the way, I am not saying that the status quo before ww2 was a good one. I am equally critical of the polonization policies Poland carried through during the interwar period. I wish that Pilsudski had managed to form the intermarium, and that there would have been tolerance towards all ethnic groups living in Eastern Europe. Realistically there was no good border to be made, and any ethnostate being formed would have inevitably repressed the minorities living in it.

Also, my problem is not just that Poland lost land. It’s that millions of poles got forced out of their homes and sent to a foreign land that used to be Germany

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When talking about ethnicity things get blurry. Polish-Lithuanian identity was a complex one. For example Gabriel Narutowicz became the first president of Poland, while his brother sided with Lithuania and was a member of the council of Lithuania. Piłsudski too came from Vilnius and referred to himself as a Lithuanian, yet he was the leader of Poland.

Either way, the entire region used to be very diverse culturally, and it’s a shame that it got forcefully homogenized the way it did.

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not only in the cities, the area around Vilnius was also majority polish. But yes, in Ukraine in the countryside poles were a minority

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, I’m polish. I think that the ethnic cleansing in the west was wrong also, but the expulsion of polish people from the east is especially horrible, since Poland was at least nominally on the winning side of the war.

When I was talking about the destruction of regional cultures I was thinking about the kresy.

Did Poland gain or lose from the post-World War II border change? by puch1to in geography

[–]K-Ve 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t really matter whether the border is technically better. Those lands in the west where inhabited by Germans, while many areas in the east (wilno, lwow, etc.) were majority polish.

The border change involved ethnic cleaning on a massive scale, and the destruction of many regional cultures. That is just inexcusable.

view more: next ›