r/georgism

I’ve been looking at a few recent election results, and it seems social democrats are getting very much popular. I wouldn’t even be surprised if one were to become the Democrat presidential nominee in 2028. That being said, pretty much all of these social democrats are obviously not following any sort of Georgist policy agenda. In fact, some of them are even trying to do rent freezes (which is anti-Georgist from what I can tell) and other similarly distortionary tactics.

So with that, is there any way we try to use this surge in popularity of populist reform across the nation in our favor?

Most social democrats are fond of environmental regulations, so perhaps they can be persuaded to instead use pigouvian taxes? Like a carbon tax? I dont know, really.

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!🔰

Several people have taken the position that they are okay with taxing gambling proceeds based on how much was won, ignoring the losing bets, because they want to incentivize people to not gamble.

I am pro choice and I feel like it wouldn't be compelling to say you're going to prevent people from getting an abortion in order to incentivize people to refrain from having sex or unprotected sex.

I feel like it wouldn't be compelling to say you're going to prevent people from getting bypass surgery in order to incentivize people to refrain from being overweight.

I feel like it wouldn't be compelling to say you're going to prevent people from getting liver surgery or transplants in order to incentivize people to refrain from drinking alcohol.

In each case, the "incentive" occurs after the action made.

You might think these other examples relate to health. But the fact is, taxing phantom gambling profits also affects people's health. If people are obligated to pay taxes based on money they never made, it interferes with their ability to pay for fucking health insurance (and other medical care). So it has real, tangible effects on people's lives and health. It's not purely an academic exercise.

There may be other aspects of the tax code that should change that I'm not aware of. But this is a part of the tax code that should be changed. If you don't want people to gamble, don't make it legal. If it's legal, people shouldn't be taxed on only their winning bets. It's too easy to rack up huge "winnings" and equal or slightly larger losses with all the deposit bonuses, parlay bonuses, and hedging.

If there's a more suitable subreddit for this post, I apologize and please let me know. Thank you.

I grew up in a town with an oil refinery. When it was built, the area wasn't densely populated at all, but as the jobs increased, the density grew. However the land under refinery is heavily contaminated with oil byproducts, heavy metals, and other toxins. Even if the oil company pulled up stakes, dismantled everything over the dozen acres or so, and left it an open plot, the land would be unfit for human habitation without substantial and sustained effort. In many ways the land value is negative at this point.

This got me to thinking, in Georgism what is to stop some land hoarders from poisoning their land if it doesn't interrupt their income stream if such poisoning reduces the value of land and therefore the LVT paid? Wouldn't that introduce an economic incentive to pollute/corrupt, especially if it's not obviously visible from outside the property, for example a lack of air pollution/smells?

Read the title tbh, the rest of this isn't necessary reading. But I'll provide a little context for those of you who'd like it:

I'm from Sydney, NSW, Australia. Every local council in my state charges a Land Value Tax (LVT) as their primary revenue source, with the land values all being assessed by a state-level independent office.

Replacing Stamp Duty with an LVT was a big issue at the last statewide election, with the party that won (and will definitely win the next one) unfortunately wanting nothing to do with it. But, it occured to me that implementing a LVT is much easier here than in many American states, because the framework already exists for councils to do the same.

And as an aside, I'm pretty sure that every other state does the same thing, so if the federal government were to ban stamp duty collection, a nationwide pivot towards LVT wouldn't be extremely difficult.

With all the discourse about the lack of an LVT in the USA and the UK, it took me an embarrassingly long time to realise that we've already got an LVT system down under. So I'm now wondering, where else in the world is already doing this?

TIA 🙂

Land value there is extra cheap and so is the LVT I have to pay. I build everything in my city completely from scratch.

People start moving in, they populate the city, they live there, the work there, and the city becomes attractive. Land value goes to the roof.

A) Should the LVT update to reflect the new land value? I generated that value, taxing it would mean disincentivizing my land development work.
B) 300 years pass by, my only heir still own the whole city. Should he pay and updated LVT or still pennies?
C) Another 300 years pass, now the land has been parceled, sold, resold, and now the city land is distributed among plenty of landowners, mirroring the land distribution of most normal cities. Should the landowners still pay only pennies or should the LVT be updated? Not properly taxing it would allow landlord to extract unearned rent.

This is an extreme example to prove a point, but the point is value in general.
When i build and open a nice restaurant where there were rubbles, the value of the land value around my restaurant increases, and so does the land value of my restaurant itself.
A LVT would absorb both the increase in value of the area around my restaurant (and that's ok as I'm not profiting from it anyway), but also the increase of value of my land, that i was previously able to capture myself.
Land value is not truly distinct from development value.

I had this revelation a few nights ago:
If I'm rich enough I can just park my wealth in an index fund and extract rent in exchange o nothing. i don't provide labour or skills. If I want ~zero risk I can park my wealth in USA bonds.

This is almost the same as land rent. I have no incentive to use my skills and time to provide added value, if I have enough assets I can extract a rent big enough to finance all my consumptions, counter inflation, and increase my wealth on top of that.

Sounds like the perfect target to tax. What do you think about a wealth tax equal to the risk-free rate of return? Invested savings would not be eroded, but would not provide "free" rent. It would not disincentivize value production or make the market more inefficient.

Maybe there is no stupider version of Georgism and that’s why it’s struggled to be popular?

Please elaborate on your opinion in the comments.

View Poll