Georgist Discussion Thread - We Need a Land Value Tax Now

[Radiatia]

I'd stop short of calling myself a Georgist, but I have a soft spot for some of the ideas - I think they're worth exploring.

[Vetalia]

This is the piece that doesn't make sense to me; wouldn't the landowner pass on the cost of the tax via an increase in rent on the land? It seems like it would actually incentivize concentrating land ownership and earning profits via renting it out.

Well, I find that the answers on this subreddit page provide some interesting sides on this topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/georgism/comme ... t_not_lvt/

I don't want to read a Reddit thread about this, can you provide some substantive reasoning in regards to my question based on actual Georgist theory on how to address this problem?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Currently reading Progress and Poverty, which is an excellent economic book that I can actually understand, and better yet, defines its terms consistently and accurately.

But yeah, Georgism is good. It's the fairest tax and the principle of common land is an excellent one.

[Betelgeuse Alliance]

a friend of mine says he's a georgist but he's never explained further so I've always assumed he just says it to be funny and bolster his image as a Very Online person who knows obscure things

I'll admit that I don't know every existing detail about the effects of Georgism either, but I do find it a very interesting idea and do have at least some basic knowledge about it, which I'll try to use to explain the ideology as best as I possibly can by replying to you guys. And if there's something I'm wrong about, or if I don't quite know something yet, I'd be glad to educate myself on it further. I'm also learning.

[Betelgeuse Alliance]

Well, I find that the answers on this subreddit page provide some interesting sides on this topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/georgism/comme ... t_not_lvt/

I don't want to read a Reddit thread about this, can you provide some substantive reasoning in regards to my question based on actual Georgist theory on how to address this problem?

Alright, I will try my best to explain it, but I can't guarantee that I'm going to be 100% correct about some points, since I'm still learning, just so you know.

So, in order to uderstand this, let's make a comparison between a property tax and the LVT, and how they affect the supply and demand.

- Imagine that a property tax is imposed. Due to the property being taxed (which does not have a fixed supply), the market price for said property (housing in this case) is artificially increased, meaning that the owner of the property can't produce as many homes anymore due to the added expense to production, so he/she has to pass on some of the tax to tenants in order to make up for the lost revenue. This effectively increases the rent that the renters pay and decreases supply for housing, which benefits no one.

- The LVT on the other hand is a tax on land, and since the supply of land is always fixed, taxing it has no effect on its supply and thus the market price stays the same, meaning that the cost of renting it also doesn't change.

Now, if the landlord decides to essentially pass on the LVT anyway, this would mean that he/she would have to charge the land above its intended free-market price. But since the rental value is taxed by the government in the form of the LVT and used to improve the community through either investing in schools, infrastructure and the like, or by having the population do it by using the LVT revenue to provide UBI, land values will increase, which lead to even more LVT revenue earned from landowners. This in term is also passed on to the tenants in this scenario, but that only means the.tenants would still benefit in the sense that they now have better schooling, infrastructure, etc. or more UBI to spend.

But what if it's only a few landowners who do this instead of most or all of them (meaning that it won't have any significant effects on government revenue)? In all honesty, I currently don't know in that case, sorry about that.

And as I said, it's possible that I may have gotten some things wrong because I'm still learning, but I tried my best. I hope you understand.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

So Georgists believe that you have a right to certain private property, but land should be publicly owned?

No,The socialist state does not recognize private ownership of land. The owner can only rent a piece of land for a certain period of time. If it's a farmer, the rent is free. The right to use the land can be recovered by the state at any time

[Stellonia]

Georgists should form local movements to replace the property tax with a land value tax.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Now, if the landlord decides to essentially pass on the LVT anyway, this would mean that he/she would have to charge the land above its intended free-market price. But since the rental value is taxed by the government in the form of the LVT and used to improve the community through either investing in schools, infrastructure and the like, or by having the population do it by using the LVT revenue to provide UBI, land values will increase, which lead to even more LVT revenue earned from landowners. This in term is also passed on to the tenants in this scenario, but that only means the.tenants would still benefit in the sense that they now have better schooling, infrastructure, etc. or more UBI to spend.

I think you're counting on Xeno's Paradox to restrain rents, and that doesn't work. The LVT will be passed on to renters, which will increase the assessed value, which will slightly increase the LVT, which will again be passed on, etc. It may look like they can't do that because it adds up to infinity. But actually it doesn't unless the LVT is really insanely high. An infinite number of (diminishing) increments can in fact add up to a finite amount.

[Mushet]

I do like me some Georgism, shame how obscure it is.

[The Blaatschapen]

How can a person own land? Did they build it?

Well, the Dutch did, but reasonably, most land was already there when humans came around.

Uncultivated, sure, but the square meters of earth themselves were there.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

How can a person own land? Did they build it?

Well, the Dutch did, but reasonably, most land was already there when humans came around.

Uncultivated, sure, but the square meters of earth themselves were there.

They found.
An ancient philosopher began to think about this problem, and he came to a conclusion:"VENI VIDI VICI"

[The Blaatschapen]

How can a person own land? Did they build it?

Well, the Dutch did, but reasonably, most land was already there when humans came around.

Uncultivated, sure, but the square meters of earth themselves were there.

They found.
An ancient philosopher began to think about this problem, and he came to a conclusion:"VENI VIDI VICI"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9W1zTEuKLY

[Betelgeuse Alliance]

Now, if the landlord decides to essentially pass on the LVT anyway, this would mean that he/she would have to charge the land above its intended free-market price. But since the rental value is taxed by the government in the form of the LVT and used to improve the community through either investing in schools, infrastructure and the like, or by having the population do it by using the LVT revenue to provide UBI, land values will increase, which lead to even more LVT revenue earned from landowners. This in term is also passed on to the tenants in this scenario, but that only means the.tenants would still benefit in the sense that they now have better schooling, infrastructure, etc. or more UBI to spend.

I think you're counting on Xeno's Paradox to restrain rents, and that doesn't work. The LVT will be passed on to renters, which will increase the assessed value, which will slightly increase the LVT, which will again be passed on, etc. It may look like they can't do that because it adds up to infinity. But actually it doesn't unless the LVT is really insanely high. An infinite number of (diminishing) increments can in fact add up to a finite amount.

Alright, thanks for pointing that out, I just read that part of my explanation again and it does indeed seem rather sketchy now.