Imagine not being a Georgist in 2022 with the internet (human knowledge) at your fingertips.
>the only true system with zero deadweight loss >encourages only the efficient use of natural resources (aka 'land') >provides equal access to natural opportunities to everyone regardless of income or status >completely eliminates monopolization of natural opportunities >treats all natural resources, locations, and spaces as the common inheritance of all citizens >by not pretending unimproved land (natural resources) are a form of capital, strictly prevents oligarchs from forming off natural monopolies, which are our largest societal parasites (far more than debt-based monetary bankers, who yes are also parasitic) >maintains free markets but with privatization of capital and labor only; land is the chess board on which capital and labor compete, declaring land a form of capital guarantees capital will forever dominate labor as it currently does >eliminates all forms of taxation (i.e. income, payroll, sales, property, etc) except the land value tax: zero deadweight loss (income tax disincentivizes income, sales tax disincentivizes sales, payroll disincentivizes employment, etc) >forces slumlords to sell to someone willing to develop the land; slums immediately disappear, land speculation immediately ends freeing up all societal land opportunities >ends land speculation instantly >farming becomes far more profitable (farming is capital and labor intensive activity on cheap land, i.e. they will pay virtually no taxes compared to urbanites who will pay most taxes under a Georgist system, as they should)
Nb: I'm not the original OP, and actually dislike georgism. It was a fun thread and I'd like to keep it going though
>Fairness does incentivize this by eliminating grift and class jealousy and enabling upward mobility and access to opportunity. That's the thing. Upward mobility is not what causes community building. Structuring society to create long-term community is >>They really didn't need lebensraum >They thought they did because they didn't understand how to use their land efficiently. That was a major chink in the NSP armor. They thought they needed it because super efficient land use would uproot long established folk ways, and they thought food independence was the most important national security goal in light of ww1. They could have gotten around it by not being dicks
Aaron Perry
>I think the other thing you're having trouble with is that if many places are nice, and the economy is stable, people are less likely to move to find somewhere they can support themselves. You're undervaluing the importance economy has on peoples life decisions. Think about how many places had problems with vagrants during the great depression. i think that is a factor, and a major one, but not the only one. There are other factors as well, such as the drive to develop high value land, which tears apet communities
Grayson Anderson
>Are you saying buildings can't be made with soul? No, I think the problem is really that the builders/owners don't have to live in them >Are you saying people who live in close communities are atomized? Oftentimes, yes. They are transient as hell. >Because when I look at suburbia's sprawl, soulless atomized automatons is what I'd call it. Depends on the place. It often is. >When you take all tax costs out of labor, capital, and investment you make building quality high-rises much cheaper and when you remove the aspect of land speculation you make the building's features much more important in the investment equation. People don't want commie blocks, in a Georgist system you don't get them. All you have to do is look at Singapore to see this is factually true. I think it's safe to say that modern Singaporeans are more atomized than their grandparents
Camden Collins
How would a Georgian nation hold up against outside pressure like a war or trade sanctions since I’m assuming they take in less taxes than what we currently have
Tyler Morgan
bump. Original thread was breddy gud.
Aiden Edwards
From what I've seen from these guys,I think taxes would be more or less fixed, so I guess you would have to store up for that eventuality, or perhaps become non georgist for the duration. Idk.
Angel Perez
I'm not sure tax revenue would be less. It might be a lot more, actually
Hudson Rivera
Although we call the Land Value Tax a "tax" it is generally more appropriate to think of it as a citizen's dividend as it is society that gives places their location-based value (which is the majority of the value tied to any given high-value location, i.e. urban land).
TL:DR The basic idea is very simple: the least detrimental point in the economy to levy taxes is upon natural monopolies. This spawned what became known as the "single tax" theory, that the tax base should come from one place - the unimproved value of land. So no taxes on wages or income, and no taxes on capital or investment. Modern economics teaches that tax burdens fall entirely on producers when supply is perfectly inelastic, as supply of land is. This is in essence George's observation in modern lanuage. The economic theory drastically reduces rent-seeking and parasitic behaviors.
George was Marx's contemporary nemesis and far exceeded him in genius. Marx was artificially elevated to meet various oligarch-controlled regime goals while George was removed from all history and economics courses. Meanwhile George's magnum opus was the greatest selling book in history at the time (selling millions before the end of the 19th century) and Marx was a virtually unknown kook.
The magnum opus: Progress And Poverty (Complete): An Inquiry Into The Cause Of Industrial Depressions And Of Increase Of Want With Increase Of Wealth - The Remedy a.co/d/87sUyx5
It has good ideas, in my opinon, but I think there are a couple of flaws. I would advocate for a modified georgist system, but it's advocates from the other thread seem to think it wouldn't work with any half-measures.
Luis Martinez
>Nb: I'm not the original OP, and actually dislike georgism. It was a fun thread and I'd like to keep it going though I'm curious OP why would anyone want to bump this thread when all you did was repost the OP without the follow-on posts that had all the links and supportive research and then go into an immediate deboonk against it
Evan White
Yeah, sorry, I forgot. I posted them later. I was being a bit of a sperg. I think the discussion is valuable.
Mason Rogers
These are the follow-ons
Julian Phillips
Ok that's fair, well to this I'm not sure what flaws you find in it. Georgism is a system for taxation, it can be grafted onto any social order/form of govt you want (NatSoc or literally anything) as long as a couple key requirements are met which basically every form of govt Any Forums wants meets the criteria. So whatever you dislike about it may be a factor of the form of govt you imagine it in and less to do with Georgism itself. This tends to be the case with people new to the concept (assuming you're new to it, maybe you're not).
Brody Richardson
I'm fairly new to it. i see a problem with residential land use taxes generally, because it disincentivizes people from creating high-value communities, as it ends up taxing them out to make way for development. The ruthless efficiency of it all seems bad. It looks like a great system, if it didn't also look like it would basically tax anyone who gave a shit about their community out of their neighborhood.
Thomas Hernandez
My man! Bump!
Dominic Cox
Thanks, user.
Jonathan Lopez
Residential land use is always the stickiest part for people because they inevitably imagine being uprooted every other year or something. There are a couple responses to this. One is that obviously we can carve out exceptions for primary dwellings and try to stabilize them through legal means. I think that's fine, it gets most of the benefits of Georgism and keeps people from being too nervous. If Georgists are confident that the uprooting factor is actually a non-factor they will accede the point and allow it. I think most Georgists would tell you that there will be a lot of uprooting at first when Goergism is implemented but not much at all after that, so really what they'd like to see is a period of reorganization followed by stability, which could be legally enforced.
The other response is that the current system of rent seeking is horrible for poor renters who can be priced out by landlords at a whim and often are. Lower middle class and up really don't understand this problem because they don't deal with it, but in terms of stability what we have now actually sucks for poor people.
>ruthless efficiency I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from? How is it ruthless?
I'm also not clear how it disincentivizes people from creating high value communities. It actually incentivizes investment and capital deployment rather than capital speculation. It punishes empty lots, squalor and dilapidation. It incentivizes making your own land as beautiful and desirable as possible.
John Taylor
I'm going afk for a few but I'll respond more in a bit if this thread stays up.
Blake Allen
>Residential land use is always the stickiest part for people because they inevitably imagine being uprooted every other year or something. There are a couple responses to this. One is that obviously we can carve out exceptions for primary dwellings and try to stabilize them through legal means. I think that's fine, it gets most of the benefits of Georgism and keeps people from being too nervous. If Georgists are confident that the uprooting factor is actually a non-factor they will accede the point and allow it. That wasn't the impression I got from the other thread, but OK, I'll take your word for it >I think most Georgists would tell you that there will be a lot of uprooting at first when Goergism is implemented but not much at all after that, so really what they'd like to see is a period of reorganization followed by stability, which could be legally enforced. I'm not sure that the period of reorganization is a good thing when it uproots communities that are generations old, even if they are somewhat privileged. I'm also not convinced that stability will follow, because people are drawn to good communities, which will inevitably raise land value, encouraging high-density development, and taxing people out of communities that they built, if they buildt them well. shitty communities, on the other hand will be fine. It's a bit of a paradox >The other response is that the current system of rent seeking is horrible for poor renters who can be priced out by landlords at a whim and often are. I agree, but high taxes on rented land could fix this without going full georgist, and it would be far less disruptive
John Roberts
>Lower middle class and up really don't understand this problem because they don't deal with it, but in terms of stability what we have now actually sucks for poor people. I agree, but I don't think that this will necessarily help the poor an absolute ton, and it does seem like it will fuck up the parts of society that actually already function well (lower middle class and up communities) >>ruthless efficiency >I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from? How is it ruthless? By making land value the only parameter for taxation, it makes owning a home in a high demand are almost impossible if you don't have a super high income, even if that is the only place where you would have a support system >I'm also not clear how it disincentivizes people from creating high value communities. It actually incentivizes investment and capital deployment rather than capital speculation. It punishes empty lots, squalor and dilapidation. It incentivizes making your own land as beautiful and desirable as possible. Because when you create high-trust communities, people want to move there, which drives up land value, which drives up taxes. It's actually the same problem that normal property taxes assessed yearly creates
