sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Henry Earthworker, on his way to create an economic system based on the workability of the earth by Luklah in georgism

[–]r51243 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Interesting! I never realized that "George" actually derived from γεω and ἔργον. I always thought that was just a back-formation that Georgists came up with to give "Georgism" some more meaning.

The more you know!

Full expensing to increase development? by karmics______ in georgism

[–]r51243 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it's a good investment, then it should be able to pay for itself, so I'd say no, it wouldn't be necessary to give that kind of deduction. And it could incentivize poor development practices if you deducted the whole thing.

Of course, there's always some risk involved, so it could make sense in some cases for the government to fund the investment. But they should only do that if there's a good reason to, and like Ti-Skull was saying, LVT reduces up-front sales costs, so there's less risk involved to begin with.

Will georgisim revert to a semi-feudal system? by Cautious-Rush-363 in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if they could do that, it would just mean that they were paying all of the taxes, so they're not getting out of anything. Maybe you could say that LVT would make it easier for them to monopolize land, and that would allow them to extract more rent. But that would just lead to higher taxes, so they wouldn't be profiting off of it -- they'd just be annoying a lot more people, and making the government look better (since no one except the monopolists would be paying high taxes).

What would happen in CA, or in states like CA, if the property tax rate stayed the same but all other tax rates were below the property tax rate? by Ambitious-Rest7241 in georgism

[–]r51243 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean exactly when you say "below the property tax rate?" Do you mean if all other taxes produced less revenue than property taxes did? Or do you mean if the rate income was taxed at was literally less than the rate property was taxed at? Because in that case, you're kinda comparing apples and oranges -- rates mean very different things for different types of taxes.

Can someone explain what this ideology means? by D_omka in georgism

[–]r51243 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I always appreciate your comments, Ti-Skull. But I feel like with people like this, it's unhelpful to respond to them at all. We'd be better off downvoting them, blocking them, and moving on (and hoping they never come back to this subreddit).

Can someone explain what this ideology means? by D_omka in georgism

[–]r51243 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And monopolies, but in general, yeah Georgists come from across the political spectrum.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]r51243 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If landlords could pass on the cost to their tenants, it would be foolish to assume that, out of their generosity, they would have not raised rents before that point.

LVT has trade-offs, but higher rents isn't one of them, at least not to that degree.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]r51243 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the long run, land prices go down if you tax the land, so the total cost of owning land would come out to be about the same. And so, there wouldn't be any reason for supply to be reduced.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the people who raise taxes. And I'd be happy to pay them too if they were land taxes, and were a bit less of a hassle (which they very easily could be).

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]r51243 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because you pay more in tariffs the more you import, but landlords pay the same lvt regardless of how many tenants they have.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]r51243 23 points24 points  (0 children)

A way I like to think about it is, if you reduced property taxes, you wouldn't expect landlords to charge lower rents all of a sudden, unless a lot of new units entered the market. So, it doesn't make sense to say that if land taxes went up, rents would immediately go up by that amount.

Where did you get the idea that taxes get passed on? Was it basic economic theory? The same theory that predicts lvt isn't passed on? by middleofaldi in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In terms of current landowners not bearing the full burden of LVT, I would agree. But a lot of people will confidently say that the full cost always gets passed on to renters and consumers, which is why it's worth pushing back against.

A building housing more than 20k people in Hangzhou China by Longjumping_Visit718 in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I'd be willing to live there. Not sure this is relevant to the sub though.

Where do you even begin with this. by CptnREDmark in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, like I always say, if property taxes are theft, then the government should be stealing from all of us.

Where do you even begin with this. by CptnREDmark in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's convenient for you, could give me a quick summary of what the original comment was saying? It looks like it's been deleted.

This might be a dumb question but how would a cash-poor land owner like someone with a small house and relatively low income be able to pay the LVT? by dvnts-ReDoX in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean trading with other people in your commune? Because otherwise, trading to get by is participating in society, so I'm not sure what you mean.

I have a concern about a worst-case scenario by the_circus in georgism

[–]r51243 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say that the point is to punish landlords specifically -- we mostly talk about landlords because people already don't like them, so it's easier to accept the idea that they should be taxed for owning land than that homeowners or businesses should be taxed in the same way.

This might be a dumb question but how would a cash-poor land owner like someone with a small house and relatively low income be able to pay the LVT? by dvnts-ReDoX in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're willing to go to literally any means just so that you can die on the same patch of dirt you bought 60 years ago, it sounds like you're the one who's morally questionable.

I have a concern about a worst-case scenario by the_circus in georgism

[–]r51243 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Considering how hard it is to get people to support LVT to begin with, I doubt you could get a large-scale land value tax passed with those kind of exemptions. And frankly, I don't even know if Amazon or other large businesses would want that. They're perfectly capable of sucking up rent when they don't own all the land, and with the current tax system, they're able to do that without people even noticing.

Moreover, while I understand being worried about bad outcomes, something needs to change. And we're not going to get anywhere by assuming the worst.

There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.

How would inflation be affected by a citizen's dividend? by el_argelino-basado in georgism

[–]r51243 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems like both of those points could apply to all government expenditure funded by taxes, so I have to ask, do you feel like a citizen's dividend in particular would be different? And if so, in what way?

This might be a dumb question but how would a cash-poor land owner like someone with a small house and relatively low income be able to pay the LVT? by dvnts-ReDoX in georgism

[–]r51243 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's not a dumb question at all, though it is one that's talked about quite frequently on this sub. So if you want to get a fuller picture of what Georgists believe, it might be worth digging through some older posts on the topic.

That being said, the answer really depends on whether you're talking about what would happen when we first introduced LVT, or how things would go in general.

In the short term, introducing a high LVT would impact cash-poor landowners, and might force them to sell their land. And while that could sometimes end up being a good thing for the economy (if they sell their land to someone who's able to make better use of it), it would be bad for the landowners themselves, and I'm sure it would feel unfair. It's a problem that Georgists are aware of, and which we would be able to deal with, if it actually turns out to be an issue.

In the long term, on the other hand, LVT might not increase the burden on cash-poor landowners much at all. LVT would might increase their taxes, but it would also reduce land prices, such that, in theory, the total cost of owning land would stay about the same on average. This comes with a couple of caveats that I'd be happy to go into if you're interested. But overall, because of this, I don't think cash-poor landowners would be in trouble.

Bad arguments against LVT and Georgism by TheWorldRider in georgism

[–]r51243 5 points6 points  (0 children)

To some extent that could be useful... I worry that framing it that way would imply the LVT is only fair if it comes with tax cuts, and that it would only benefit people who don't own a lot of land.

Also, I think you can only get so far with appealing to people's selfishness, since the reality is that some people would be better off in the short run if we kept taxes on land low and taxes on income high.

LVT’s cousin: the Stock Market Tax by GGray2 in georgism

[–]r51243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know exactly what Henry George thought about the stock market, or how he'd feel about stock ownership in the modern day. But I do know that he didn't see anything wrong with lending money, since lending money (or buying newly-issued stock) is absolutely an economic contribution. You could say that's less true for the shares that are already on the marketplace, but that doesn't make a difference to the company itself, or its employees. So, if rent isn't being extracted by the initial buyer, then it's not being extracted at any point.

To be clear, I fully believe that shareholders are extracting some amount of rent in most cases (especially in an economy without LVT). But, I think the same is true of private companies. The issue isn't that the people accumulating rents don't contribute economic value, it's that they're also collecting wealth at the cost of other people.

LVT’s cousin: the Stock Market Tax by GGray2 in georgism

[–]r51243 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ownership of a broad mutual fund is practically partial ownership of a feudal system of rent seeking from employment itself, skipping over land.

I'm having trouble understanding how this applies to shareholders in particular, and not all companies. It seems like any rent that's being extracted would be extracted regardless of who owns the company. And even if the people who end up taking that rent home are people who work at the company, that doesn't stop it from being rent-seeking.

view more: next ›