Henry George wrote Progress and Poverty in 1879. He laid out the full argument for land value taxes with a dividend.
>All I wish to make clear is that, without any increase in population, the progress of invention constantly tends to give a larger proportion of the produce to the owners of land, and a smaller and smaller proportion to labor and capital.
- Progress and Poverty
>The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.
— Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Common Misconceptions:
Farmers will be ruined: any farmer with rural land will be fine due to a low land value, they might even get more from the dividend than they pay in tax. The farm owners that will lose are people like Bill Gates, who is the largest private owner of farmland.
Nature will be ruined: people are willing to pay for nature, and so there's an optimal balance of nature vs infrastructure which will maximize the land value.
Suburban home owners will be ruined: while existing land values will ideally crash to 0, anyone who is just trying to live in their house, rather than use it for land speculation will still have a place to live. Any first time homebuyers will be far better, because housing prices will be significantly lower.
Everything will just become commieblocks/shitholes: there's an optimal density which people are willing to pay for. The way to maximize profit is to make places where people enjoy living.

Resources:
review/summary of progress and poverty (kind of long): https://gameofrent.com/content/progress-and-poverty-review
speech from winston churchill (/pol/ hates him, but this is a good speech): https://landvaluetax.org/comment/blog/history/winston-churchill-said-it-all-better-then-we-can/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg

>>534272195
There should be zero tax on land and people like you should be hanged in public.

im not sold on your assertations, land such as a town hall does not become soluble under such discretions

>>534272195
We tried shilling Land Value Taxation back when /pol/ was still White, and even then, /pol/ was too low-IQ to understand it. We had better results on 8ch, but even then, our efforts were futile. I used to have a bunch of good OC Land Value Taxation memes.

>>534272451
>land such as a town hall
A town hall isn't land -- IT'S A BUILDING!!!!!

LAND IS WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING!!!!

/POL/ IS SO FUCKING LOW-IQ!!!!!!!!

>>534272379
This will result in a handful of people owning all of the land. Unless you believe you'll be that top 0.01% of feudal lords, then you'll lose out with no land value taxes. Without land value taxes, the march towards a greater and greater concentration of land ownership is inevitable. It's no surprise that Texas has a relatively low COL and high property (land) taxes, while California has comparatively little land taxes, with a high COL and massive homelessness problem.
>>534272451
I'm not sure what you're getting at. A town hall will make the land around it more valuable. So the land owners of the land near the town hall will see an increase in their land price, even though they contribute next to nothing to the value produced by the town hall. The dividend from land value taxes will return that value back to the people who created it.
>>534272690
I'm just doing what I can for now. Maybe I'll give up, but I plan to post this general at least once a week for the foreseeable future.

>>534272744
spoken like an indolent bureaucrat
the people are the benefactors of tax

File: IMG_7033.jpg (173 KB, 1177x896)

173 KB JPG

>>534272195
This kind of tax thing already exists in most of the developed countries. In South Korea they already applied this theory 80 years ago and redistributed farming lands. The farmers absolutely got fucked over for 80 years on. Similar thing they did in North Korea. Didn’t work. Plz stop trying to apply failed political from 18th century. Up your fucking game level. The billionaires are looking to tax the fucking air now, It’s 3D chess faggot. If you can’t pull off a social experiment in both Korea it just means the theory is entirely wrong. We both make plenty of wrong theories work but this aint’

it was a very influential book and counterpoint to Marx, that is all but forgotten now, but had a huge influence, I recall my 80 year old great uncle lecturing me about Georgism years ago, it was a big deal for him as a young man

>>534272820
The people who are the benefactors of the tax are the citizens. The tax revenue is split up equally amongst everyone. Of course this is after local government expenses, but it's far easier to vote out corrupt local government officials than federal ones.
>>534272919
This tax has been successful wherever it's been applied. It doesn't completely solve everything, but it solves the worst issues. Singapore is a shining example of what putting some of these ideas into practice results in. They don't strictly have an LVT with a dividend, but their economic system is largely based off of Henry George's work.
North Korea is the exact opposite of this. You have a handful of people owning all of the land, rather than each person owning 1 share of the land value.
This is why both capitalism and communism have resulted in so many economic and political issues. In both cases, a small group of people end up owning all the land. LVTs with a dividend ensure everyone owns 1 and only 1 share of the land value.
>>534273092
With AI and discussions of UBI on the rise, it seems like the perfect time for Georgism to get some serious momentum. There is no other solution to the crisis of AI taking everyone's job. If AI does take everyone's job, then the only people who will have any real power are those who own natural resources.

>>534273092
its important to note, that in the revolution at the turn of the 18th century, books and pamplets and disserts and proclamation were the lifeblood of the intellectuals that built the modern world, and following the death of napoleon, the ability to safely keep these works became in doubt, and thereby reduced the capacity to produce good and great work the world over
whereas today, the censorship cartel is a product of those eastern revolutions which did not die out as in the west... and preys on intellectuals of every discipline, religiously at that

>>534273212
youre not understanding usufruct and the militant institution which holds it to be inalienable

>>534273294
can you explain what you mean without being a turboautist about it?

>>534272803
I already own property. What I want is the government to stop taxing me to give it to niggers and shitskins. Anyone saying we need more tax, when we already piss away the taxes we currently take, is an absolute idiot and a thieving sack of shit.

>if we don't give more taxes on land no one will own property
That's false and completely fucking retarded.

>>534273212
>discussions of UBI
Lmao, you are dumb.

File: 53585B2C-1186-4D9D-BC85-4(...).gif (81 KB, 200x200)

81 KB GIF

>>534273212
Singapore is not a normal country. Thier policies cannot be applied to other countries who needs to work, sells goods and services, resources. It’s literal tax haven, Casino world and collect gibs from South China Sea chokepoint. Its existence depends on normal countries doing normal things. Abd you are suck a lolcow for sugessting Singapore as an example. Singapre HDB project is failing now. They have a serious problem with reseller market. Regressed back to the same situation. It was just a giant ponze scheme but people didn’t notice cause it’s got 99 years due date. But it’s broken not even halfway in. It was only a net loss for people - freedom of movement restricted - for what? - hidden racial segregation in SP - those white skin Chinese and brown Malays.

It’s broken. If the government lets the bubble burst, the middle class loses their retirement. If they keep propping it up, the youth are priced out. It’s a classic sovereign-scale "kick the can" maneuver.

>>534273481
What I said was that property ownership will become concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people.
Your descendants will eventually become homeless somewhere down the line if the land issue is not properly resolved.
The best way for everyone to have a decent, stable, affordable place to live is to massively increase the housing supply. The best way to do this is to disincentivize land speculation and rent seeking, while incentivizing building housing. LVTs with a dividend do exactly this.
In addition, the dividend can likely cover the land tax on your house.
In the book review I linked, the author calculated a rough estimate of what the tax burden vs dividend is.
Anyone who is a single adult on property worth less than about $250k would break even on the tax. If you're married, so 2 adults are living there, then this increases to $500k.
ctrl+f two adults
https://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal
The people who pay the most are the wealthiest land owners and businesses. Regular people who just want a decent place to live for themselves and their families will have an easier time achieving that, because the cost of housing will be dramatically increased.
In modern times, people don't think "I need to own a farm otherwise I will starve", because food is so cheap and abundant. LVTs with a dividend would make housing the same. The whole rush to own and hold onto land before everyone else would be gone, because housing will also be cheap and abundant.
With regard to your original comment, do you also think Adam Smith should get the rope?
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/land-value-tax-versus-urban-sprawl
>Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.

>>534274051
>They have a serious problem with reseller market. Regressed back to the same situation.
So they had prosperity while their Georgism-inspired policies persisted, and are now having issues because they are moving away from those policies?
The entire problem is that housing was used as a source of investment, rather than a place to live. The government must let the bubble burst, otherwise Singapore will inevitably be ruined.
The reason Singapore can be a tax haven is because so much of their tax revenue to fund their development comes from land values.

>>534272690
Its not just a low IQ problem. The ideas of George were deliberately subverted in an extremely effective counter revolution led by the landed elite.
>Redefine land as "capital" so you can't tax it separately
>Turn rent into "surplus on anything" (now wages and profits are "rent" too)
>Hire shills like J.B. Clark, Seligman, Ely to push this garbage
>Fire actual economists who liked George (Nearing, Eaton, etc.)
>Build the American Economic Association to gatekeep
>Push "uniform taxation" so you tax wages instead of land
>Entire field becomes autistic static models that ignore land entirely.
>Taxes get shifted onto workers and businesses.
>Land speculation runs wild. Inequality explodes.

Modern economists offer no solutions, just cope about "trade-offs." They literally rewrote the entire field to protect free-riding rentseekers and call it "science." Georgism was the original redpill. They had to memory hole HG.

File: D0E43EF5-CCE9-4340-BAE3-3(...).jpg (168 KB, 1024x953)

168 KB JPG

>>534274127
You need to stop reading those Sim City style Utopianism muh Georgism or whatever and start from actual people, actual data, empiricism, what happened to American trailer park people and etc - you can’t possibly complain about MAGA at this point. They just took their fuckin land cause they couldn’t pay tax, they don’t have fuck all - they don’t got time to listen to this tikkun olam theory of eberythiny stuff - woaaah, this time we’ll fix it. Nope. They don’t got time to read books, they don’t got time to store books. They’ll just gonna start shooting or shooting themselves

>>534274476
>They just took their fuckin land cause they couldn’t pay tax
In a trailer park, the land value will be so low that the dividend will more than cover the tax. We could obliterate the welfare state and replace it with this system, and those people would be better off.
>They don’t got time to read books, they don’t got time to store books.
I agree, but what else can I do put make my best effort to explain the way out of this mess?
related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
>They’ll just gonna start shooting or shooting themselves
This is what these policies can stop.

File: C867BC06-B8A5-42B5-8F8B-6(...).gif (302 KB, 300x223)

302 KB GIF

>>534274276
If a goverment can’t refinance their own land, they lose developmental competition in South China sea and Idonesia or other nations will just take their place. SP gets 25% of their GDP from maritime toll. Without fixing the global finance system this whole talk about muh “land” is just ponzi scheme sailsman talkiny point or your just autistic at this point. At least the cringe ‘whatifalthist’ guy actually acknoledge himsself as abd alt historian.

>>534274830
>your just autistic at this point
almost certainly true
>If a goverment can’t refinance their own land, they lose developmental competition in South China sea and Idonesia or other nations will just take their place
Competing with other nations isn't as important as ensuring your own people have a decent place to live. Creating a decent place to live will attract investment. As I said before, a country's sovereign wealth fund becomes the quality of its infrastructure and its people. The higher quality those are, the higher the tax rate and dividend are.
What would the global finance system have to do with this? Why would it make LVTs a failure for Singapore?

>>534274127
>A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses.
Lol, that's completely fucking retarded and absolutely false unless you put in some sort of rent control. Which we already know stagnates the fuck out of the rental market.

Your entire argument is just "why don't we take from this group and give free shit to this group" basic communism/socialism evil shit. It's thievery, you're a parasitic thief. That's all there is to it. You haven't suggested anything new about how property tax is calculated that I've heard. The county already values it at it's current market value according to its use. The only thing new you are suggesting is we give the taxes (you stole) to people who did nothing to earn it.

Also, your claim that more taxes will somehow incentivize someone to build more housing is fucking preposterous.

Anyone claiming more taxes for our corrupt government will somehow fix anything must have an iq in the double digits. They already print the money at will and nothing gets better. You have to be completely insane to think more taxes will solve any problem.

>let's take more from the people who actually produce value to give to worthless people who produce no value
I'd prefer we decorate every telephone post in the country with the corpses of people who think like you do.

>>534275028
>sitting on land and doing absolutely nothing while money printer go brrr and infinite shitskins pile into the country = producing value
future mass grave occupant award

>>534275104
Yes, retarded faggot, I should be able to sit on my land all I fucking want. Just because kikes are flooding the country with shitskins, doesn't mean the government should be able to take from me to give to them. And, just because the government devalues our money by printing it at will, that still doesn't give you the right to take from me.

This isn't complicated. I bought something, I paid for it with my own money I earned from creating value, you should have absolutely zero claim to any of it. But, you're a thieving nigger imcapable of producing value, and the only way you can imagine getting anything of value is to take it from those capable of creating it.

>evil cannot create, only destroy
That's every single commie/socialist, evil thieving sacks of worthless shit.

>>534275028
>I'd prefer we decorate every telephone post in the country with the corpses of people who think like you do.
So you do want to kill Adam Smith.
>Lol, that's completely fucking retarded and absolutely false unless you put in some sort of rent control.
I despise rent control. If landlords could charge more for rent, then they already would be. This plus the fact that land has a fixed supply means that if a landlord tried to pass on the tax, then anyone trying to buy or rent their land would just go somewhere else, and the total supply of land would stay fixed. So the landlord cannot pass on the tax.
>It's thievery, you're a parasitic thief.
When you land value goes up, where does that value come from? Did you create that land value, or did the community around you create that land value? You can buy a piece of land, do absolutely nothing with it for decades, and potentially make a huge profit without doing any work or investing in the community. The community are the ones who create that land value, the landlord charges a toll for access to that community. In essence, the government has given its violent power of taxation to a private landlord. The private landlord has extracted wealth from the community which he did not create through that violent power of taxation. The land value tax (with a dividend) returns that wealth back to the people who created it.
The landlord has already stolen the wealth of the community. When you paid for your house, a huge portion of that cost was the land cost, which rightfully belongs to you, and not the previous landlord. Yet the landlord was able to coerce you to give it to him because of our screwed up system. Your only hope is that you can find someone else down the line who you can extract land value from to cover the original theft.
(1/2)

>>534275028
>people who did nothing to earn it
NAYRT but this cuts both ways. The partitioning of land is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with “earning” or deserving. The first property lines were drawn with speartips and arrowheads. The amount of land you control today depends directly on how many muskets some guy had back in 1802. Every acre of this country is stolen land, probably stolen many times over, whether it was the Iroquois stealing from the Huron or the Patriots stealing from the Seneca or the pro- and anti-slavery militias killing each other over empty Kansas prairie. The civilized system of buying “earned” land with “earned” money only came along when a nationstate showed up to consolidate all the violence.

Georgism recognizes that waltzing in and drawing some lines and shouting “mine! all mine!” is a retarded way to divide up the limited resource that is Earth. Especially when we all depend on the specifics of land use in a complicated way

>>534275396
Does your answer change if i teleport you and your land to a paradise of anglo-scandi hybrids who are all incapable of consuming more in public resources than they produce if they tried? Your answer reveals your ashkenazi DNA %age btw

>>534275028
>Also, your claim that more taxes will somehow incentivize someone to build more housing is fucking preposterous.
LVTs will ensure that land is put to the best, or at least a very good use, rather than being wasted on speculation and rent seeking. This means a massive boom in housing supply, as that's an excellent way to make profit off of improving land.
Downtown areas in the US are filled with empty lots, parking lots, and underdeveloped buildings. This is because there's a huge incentive to hold onto land and take very little risk by improving that land, because you can be assured that the land value will eventually go up and you'll make a decent profit that way.
LVTs totally obliterate that dynamic. Land would ideally be owned by whoever is willing to pay the most in tax on it, which is whoever will put it to its best use.
In rural/suburban areas, this will be individual families and farmers. In cities, this will be property developers building housing and businesses, rather than parking lots, empty lots, and slums.
(2/2)
>I should be able to sit on my land all I fucking want.
I agree with you, which I why I want land value taxes with a dividend. That dividend will cover most, if not all, of your land taxes, depending on how valuable the area is you live in. As I said previously, if you are married and your house is worth less than about ~$500k (in 2021 dollars, so it's more now), then you'd break even or make more money given a conservative estimate of the tax revenue.

>>534272195
>>534272195
>the owner of a plot of land would ideally be whoever is willing to pay the most in tax on it.
Im confused, how does this help us?
Wouldn't this just mean land would be owned by the wealthy since they can pay higher tax on it?

>>534275742
Land in urban areas (city centers) would be owned by big businesses and the wealthy, because they can put it to its most productive use.
Suburban and farmland would tend to be owned by families, because that's where the land is most productive.
Additionally, due to land being forced to towards its best use, the housing supply will increase dramatically, which will result in a massive reduction in housing prices. So regular people will win through a lower COL, businesses will win due to a lower cost of doing business, and landlords will lose due to them not actually producing anything of value.

>>534275473
>The community are the ones who create that land value
Nope, completely wrong again. The only reason it goes up is one: it's a limited supply, two: our kiked debt banking and monetary system that inflates value through debt. Have you ever heard of supply and demand? There is finite supply of land, and an almost infinite demand since the amount of people continues to grow, while the supply is fixed. That's what drives the price up, scarcity and currency devaluation. The people living around the property did nothing to raise the value of the property other than just existing and therefore increasing demand.

That's the main problem with commies, they beleive just their existence alone entitles them to things others actually worked to have. It does not. You can try to spin it anyway you want, but it's just plain old thievery.

>>534275848
>landlords will lose due to them not actually producing anything of value
This sounds like commie gobbledygook.
For every bad landlord, there's plenty of bad tenants. Given that big corporations and foreign entities are already buying up real estate in general, commercial and domestic, what exactly stops them from monopolising housing and charging what they please? You're just stating x and y will happen, like it's impossible for megacorps to leverage the system like they always do.

>>534275028
lvt is the opposite of rent control. rent control caps what landlords can charge and fucks supply. lvt removes the tax on actually building more housing so supply goes up. your rent dont go up, the landlord just eats less of the unearned land money. thats literally the point you keep missing. no rent control needed dumbass.lvt is the opposite of rent control. rent control caps what landlords can charge and fucks supply. lvt removes the tax on actually building more housing so supply goes up. your rent dont go up, the landlord just eats less of the unearned land money. thats literally the point you keep missing. no rent control needed dumbass.

>>534276074
It's complete commie retardation.
>tax people more on land
>???????
>dat somehow means people will build more houses

>>534276126
So, are you suggesting we lower taxes on single family homes and apartments to make development more profitable? Because, if you increase it, I can guarantee you it will be passed on to the renter.

What sort of property are you suggesting goes up in taxes? Just unused raw land?

Also, you're whole "we tax you, then we give it back to you" thing is retarded. How about you just stop trying to steal from people, instead of stealing from them then promising to give it back?

>>534276009
>The only reason it goes up is one: it's a limited supply, two: our kiked debt banking and monetary system that inflates value through debt.
FYI When Henry George wrote progress and poverty, the US government was still on the gold standard. So that can't be the cause of the COL and housing crisis. Countries that are on a hard money or fiat money standard both experience the same issues of the concentration of land ownership.
>The people living around the property did nothing to raise the value of the property other than just existing and therefore increasing demand.
Suppose all of the stores in your area closed tomorrow. The closest grocery store is now 30 miles away. Would your property value go up, down, or stay the same?
>they beleive just their existence alone entitles them to things others actually worked to have. It does not. You can try to spin it anyway you want, but it's just plain old thievery.
I've already been over how the landlord is a thief, so I won't go over it again.
>For every bad landlord, there's plenty of bad tenants. Given that big corporations and foreign entities are already buying up real estate in general, commercial and domestic, what exactly stops them from monopolising housing and charging what they please?
I agree that there's bad landlords and tenants. Landlords already charge what they please for housing. They charge whatever the maximum amount that people can afford is. Even if there's a big housing monopoly, it still can't charge more than people can actually afford to pay.
LVTs take the land portion of rent they charge and return it back to the people in the form of a dividend. It breaks up the land monopoly, by ensuring every citizen owns a single share of the land value of the country.
>This sounds like commie gobbledygook.
What value does the landlord produce? I don't mean the property manager, who performs maintenance nor whoever built the house, but the landlord himself?

Georgism is based but its moment is over and it has become a sort of niche technocratic ideal that pleases almost nobody and is politically unpalatable to implement. The average normoid hears "land tax" and this triggers a threat circuit in their brain after which point they wilfully refuse to understand the bigger picture. Meanwhile left wingers don't think we have wasted enough centuries of progressive political thought on Marxism.

>>534276490
It feels like economic theory that pre-dates income taxes, payroll taxes and all the rest of the regulations and red tape. I think focusing on stripping those back is a better solution than OPs claims of a fix all, that he can't actually tell me why it wouldn't end in monopolies.

>>534272195
Extremely antisemitic thread.

>>534276370
>Also, you're whole "we tax you, then we give it back to you" thing is retarded. How about you just stop trying to steal from people, instead of stealing from them then promising to give it back?
The vast majority of the tax revenue is paid by big businesses. If you're getting more from the dividend than you pay in tax, then that's because the businesses are covering your dividend. This doesn't increase costs for businesses, because they're already paying that land value, it just goes to a private landlord rather than back to the people who created that wealth.
>What sort of property are you suggesting goes up in taxes? Just unused raw land?
The land value of the property. Just as now with property taxes, there is a land assessment and an improvement assessment. The tax rate on improvements would go to 0, while the land tax rate would increase.
>So, are you suggesting we lower taxes on single family homes and apartments to make development more profitable?
Partly yes. However, you also put a strong disincentive in place to simply hold onto land and do nothing with it, or to only improve it slightly. You'll have to do something greatly productive with your land, or else you'll end up paying more in tax than you make, and so you'll have to sell the land to someone who will make better use of it. This is how the housing supply will be massively expanded, which will lower the cost of housing and make it more affordable for regular people like me and you to live.
>I can guarantee you it will be passed on to the renter.
I can guarantee you that it will not. I've already explained it, and you haven't said anything in response to that other than "no".
>>534276490
>The average normoid hears "land tax" and this triggers a threat circuit in their brain after which point they wilfully refuse to understand the bigger picture
t. >>534276370

>>534276383
Do you have any thoughts on this yourself, or do you get everything from this George faggot? Just because some fucker wrote a book a hundred years ago doesn't mean shit. You're actually retarded if you can't see that printing money through debt inflates the price of everything especially land. And, you completely skipped over the most important part of why land goes up, SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Land is a secure investment that is guaranteed to increase because they can't make any more of it, and the demand continues to grow. The only way it can come down is if there were less people wanting it, or if the fake money supply changes.

Also, you keep saying this shit about land value taxes. Do you not realize that land tax is already based off of its value and use? What exactly are you suggesting different from what we already have, besides just giving free money to people for no reason?

>I've already been over how the landlord is a thief, so I won't go over it again.
Lol, no the fuck you have not.

>>534276383
>LVTs take the land portion of rent they charge and return it back to the people in the form of a dividend. It breaks up the land monopoly, by ensuring every citizen owns a single share of the land value of the country.
This just sounds like communism with extra steps. I get some money from the dividend, which helps pay my rent, but please focus, what stops megacorps, or hell landlords, from just buying up all the property with existing capital.
>What value does the landlord produce? I don't mean the property manager, who performs maintenance nor whoever built the house, but the landlord himself?
Property doesn't exist in a vaccum. They take the risk of buying and maintaining that property to provide a service to renters. They didn't magically get handed property, they invested in it and should be able to profit from that investment. The amount of stories I've heard about people foreclosing, because tenants were not paying or trashed the property is ridiculous. Those people risked their money to provide a service. You're making infantile marxist arguments. This is literally the factory worker argument, that the workers should reap the profits, but they didn't build the factory or buy the machinery. You people are insufferably dense.

File: Listweb.jpg (62 KB, 375x500)

62 KB JPG

>>534276665
>I think focusing on stripping those back is a better solution than OPs claims of a fix all, that he can't actually tell me why it wouldn't end in monopolies.
I want to strip those back, but what do you replace it with? To some extent, you do need taxes.
related: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rZq1r5_U69k
It's not that it makes monopolies impossible, or even unlikely, but rather monopolies are no longer an issue. The biggest monopoly is the land monopoly, and the land tax completely obliterates the ability of the land monopoly to extract wealth from you. Anyone who is simply a land owner and doesn't do anything with their land would lose. Whereas anyone who actually improves their land would be successful. There would no longer even be an incentive to simply buy up land to charge people rent or sell it for a higher price later on.
>>534276722
>Extremely antisemitic thread.
pic related
>>534276917
>Do you have any thoughts on this yourself, or do you get everything from this George faggot?
Everything I've written which isn't a quote is my own thinking.
>>534276917
>You're actually retarded if you can't see that printing money through debt inflates the price of everything especially land.
Specifically, money printing increases the price of land, but not the value. It makes more money available to chase the same amount of land, but it does nothing to change how desirable that land is. The desirability of the land is determined by its natural resources and the infrastructure around it.
>The only way it can come down is if there were less people wanting it, or if the fake money supply changes.
You can bring the price of land to 0, without affecting its value, by taxing away the potential land value profit, and not the improvement profit.
>Do you not realize that land tax is already based off of its value and use?
If the land tax is taxing the actual use of the land, then it's too high, as that reaches into the improvement value.
(1/2)

>>534276724
>This doesn't increase costs for businesses
So, you won't be upping the tax on big business? Either way you're suggesting we take from one group (big business) to give to another group. It's thievery.

>there is a land assessment and an improvement assessment. The tax rate on improvements would go to 0, while the land tax rate would increase.

So, all land is valued the same regardless of its use?
>I can guarantee you that it will not
If you charge landlords more in taxes they will definitely charge more in rent, this is just common fucking sense.

>>534276724
>>The average normoid hears "land tax" and this triggers a threat circuit in their brain after which point they wilfully refuse to understand the bigger picture
>let me show you the bigger picture of me stealing from you
I beleive land taxes at all are fucking evil. So, yes, any discussion about land tax that isn't "abolish them" makes me want to cave your thieving skull in with a blunt object.

>>534277258
>You can bring the price of land to 0....by taxing away the potential land value
And, in your thieving retarded commie brain that's a good thing?

>>534276917
>What exactly are you suggesting different from what we already have
Eliminate taxes on improvements
Increase taxes on land value
Distribute the revenue back to the people
What this specifically changes is the incentive structure around land. People will no longer be able to make a profit off of land speculation and rent seeking, because that wealth is returned back to the people who created it. People will have to do something useful with the land, otherwise they'll go bankrupt and have to sell the land. This works out great for regular people, because it increases the housing supply dramatically and the dividend will cover as much of the tax as society can support. It also works out great for businesses, because they don't have to pay a massive upfront land cost.
>Lol, no the fuck you have not.
see >>534275473
>The community are the ones who create that land value, the landlord charges a toll for access to that community.
...
If you have some argument against this, then post it. Simply saying "no you're wrong" without an argument is utterly meaningless.
(2/2)
>>534276963
>what stops megacorps, or hell landlords, from just buying up all the property with existing capital.
Just as our current system does not stop this, neither do LVTs. The difference is that if this occurs, then those megacorps would be paying you a massive dividend.
>They take the risk of buying and maintaining that property to provide a service to renters.
I agree with you here. The person you are describing is the property developer and manager. Who I'm referring to is the landlord himself. Suppose a landowner has an empty plot of land, and over the next decade the city has a massive boom. The landlord's land is worth 100x what he originally paid, even though he hasn't done even the slightly bit of work. The property developer takes out a massive mortgage to pay off the landlord, and now the renters have to cover it. Under an LVT system, the landlord would have never owned that value

>>534277277
>So, you won't be upping the tax on big business?
I want to eliminate all income, capital gains, improvement, and other taxes.
>Either way you're suggesting we take from one group (big business) to give to another group. It's thievery.
The landlord has already taken from the community. The landlord did not create the wealth that he charges a rent or price for. The community created that wealth.
>Take now ... some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city—in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?"
>He will tell you, "No!"
>"Will the wages of common labor be any higher; will it be easier for a man who has nothing but his labor to make an independent living?"
>He will tell you, "No; the wages of common labor will not be any higher; on the contrary, all the chances are that they will be lower; it will not be easier for the mere laborer to make an independent living; the chances are that it will be harder."
>"What, then, will be higher?"
>"Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession."
>And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.
- Progress and Poverty
(1/2)

>>534275026
You admit your autism. Good but you need to understand kike debt system is the problem and that everything is rent seeking these days. Only jews seethe about land leese cause they can’t pump n dump so easily yet. Anyways this thread is more interesting than most of catalog
>>534276722
OP saying landownership is thieft, how is this anti-semitic? lmao
>>534275396
It’s pretty clear OP works for BlackRock datacenter department. This is the thing. OP doesn’t understand we dont live in -9th century anymore. It’s only being used to make it impossible to live innawoods. You don’t actully tax the land in bum fuck nowhere. You pay tax from your property or jobs income from city area. It’s their undeveloped brain or jewish school textbook doing its magic thinking that any counryside has any value. That’s where people should be living going forward, doing remote jobs or whatever. not being taxed to build more cattle box aprtment in city areas.
The answer is 4chan withdrawal prevention center. It’s called the psyops sommelier society. If you're getting tired of algo slop, you should just start building your own communities or if you cba you can join my SimpleX chat :
https://smp17.simplex.im/g#lzALEMkYHHloE3BusU9TrqIsv4XIQa_6fzIrnT7gz1Q
Desktop app : https://simplex.chat/downloads/
>Inb4 : “muh you glow” “I’m not clicking that link nigga”
Nope. You’re the demoralization shill. I got bad news for you. It’s only going to get worse. Especially worse, starting 2026. If you want actual anon discussion, talk about geopolitics, esoteric political pattens, finance, tech stuff, philosophy, paranormals while at the same time some banter allowed, places like clearweb img boards are no longer some sort of isolated layer where we can laugh at normiefags all day. Being able to not be seen is the real anon power. We’re not watching them anymore, we’re being watched.

>>534277277
>So, all land is valued the same regardless of its use?
No. Ideally, land is taxed at whatever the market is willing to pay in tax for it. Urban land will be taxed heavily, while rural land will be taxed next to nothing.
>If you charge landlords more in taxes they will definitely charge more in rent, this is just common fucking sense.
In this case, the intuitive understanding is wrong. The key point to understand is that landlords are already charging as much as people can afford. If a landlord tried to charge more by passing on the tax, then they would have more vacancy and lose twice over on both the profit from the building and the tax.
>So, yes, any discussion about land tax that isn't "abolish them"
If you are using less land than society can support from a dividend, then effectively for you land taxes (and potentially all other taxes) are abolished.
>>534277443
>And, in your thieving retarded commie brain that's a good thing?
I'm not a commie, Marx is one of the worst "philosophers/economists", if you can even call him that. I'm almost certainly more pro-business and pro-capitalism than you are.
Businesses that produce real value will excel under an LVT, because their upfront land cost, and ultimately rent due to higher building supply, will be less. Businesses built on rent seeking will collapse.
(2/2).
>>534277885
>Good but you need to understand kike debt system is the problem and that everything is rent seeking these days.
Land is the worst case of this. Once the land issue is resolved, the rest of the debt slavery system is trivial in comparison.
>It’s pretty clear OP works for BlackRock datacenter department
I work for blackrock because I'm advocating for a policy which would demolish their attempt to buy up suburban homes? nani the fuck?
>You don’t actully tax the land in bum fuck nowhere.
The LVT on rural land is next to nothing. After factoring in the dividend, the government would literally be paying you to live on rural land.
(1/2)

>>534277643
The only way the community provides value to land is through demand. Same with any commodity. Your assertion that a landlord charging for access to a commodity in demand is theft is not only incorrect, but completely laughable when you are the one wanting to steal from the person who paid for the commodity/land.

>Eliminate taxes on improvements
Great.
>Increase taxes on land value
How do you plan to value the land if without considering what its use is. And, its use is determined by what improvements are made on it. For instance, if I buy raw land and it has a set value, I could build a hundred apartments on it or a single home and the tax would remain the same?
>Distribute the revenue back to the people
Again, this is just you stealing from one group to give to another. Thievery. Not to mention it doesn't make any sense.

>>534277258
>There would no longer even be an incentive to simply buy up land to charge people rent or sell it for a higher price later on
What are you even saying? Are you clinically retarded? Your LVT doesn't make property worthless, the market will still dictate its value and it's rent price. Why wouldn't it?
>>534277643
>Just as our current system does not stop this, neither do LVTs
If anything your argument for "whoever can pay the highest lvt will own property" actually forces monopoly. The LVT meants nothing, the dividend means nothing, if property is centralised amongst the few and they can set rent prices however they please. Then your big claim about lower COL evaporates. You can't qualify any of this. Marxist economics is absolute pseudoscience.

>>534277808
>The community created that wealth.
No, it did not. The only way the community creates value is through demand. Demand is the only thing that creates value for anything. Just because I own something and the demand for it increases does not mean I owe anything to the people wanting (demanding) the thing I own. Selling something, or renting something to someone, is not stealing, no matter how much commies would like to claim it is.

>people wanting (demanding) something means they created the value with their demand, so that means you are stealing from them since their wants drive the price
Completely asinine.

>>534277885
>You pay tax from your property or jobs income from city area.
I want to eliminate taxes on income and improvements. Ideally, we'd only have land taxes, and that would be mostly paid by the biggest businesses.
>It’s their undeveloped brain or jewish school textbook doing its magic thinking that any counryside has any value.
Jews hate LVTs because they are disproportionately landlords.
>That’s where people should be living going forward, doing remote jobs
LVTs drive a huge incentive for remote jobs, because housing is far more valuable than office space
>>534278151
>The only way the community provides value to land is through demand
But the question is why is that land in such high demand? To some extent, it is a factor of population, but the largest factor is the community and natural resources. As I said previously, if all the stores within 30 miles of your house closed overnight, then your property value would become very little, because nobody would want to live there. So those stores, their owners, and their employees create a huge amount of the value of your land that you own and may eventually sell to someone else or charge a rent for. You are right now owning wealth which you did not create.
>How do you plan to value the land if without considering what its use is.
People are only willing to pay so much in tax to own land, in exactly the same way that they're only willing to pay so much in rent for some land. That amount is exactly what the tax amount is.
In practice, the local government would determine this, by the exact same methods that they currently use to calculate land value for property taxes.
>For instance, if I buy raw land and it has a set value, I could build a hundred apartments on it or a single home and the tax would remain the same?
Yes, that's exactly the point. One way to think about it is that the land is taxed "as if" it had an apartment on it. In suburban areas, it's generally better to build houses.

>>534276665
>>534276963
It is often talked about as a "fix all", which it is not, but land value taxes are widely and correctly considered one of the best known forms of taxation. A land value tax is a progressive tax (it is in effect a tax on wealth, because wealthy people tend to own more land and so they will pay more taxes), and it is also economically efficient because it is difficult to avoid and punishes idle and speculative land owners that hold valuable land simply on the expectation that its value will go up further, rather than developing it or using it actively for some productive economically viable purpose. Considered in isolation, land value tax is actually something that both right wing and left wing economic thinkers have admired. It is supposed to reward productive and entrepreneurial owners whilst punishing idle rent seeking owners who typically enjoy ever increasing land values that are generated by the work or investment of others (government infrastructure, access to services and businesses, communities that are kept safe and beautiful by the local population, improvements made by other private land owners in the area). That is maybe the key idea of Georgism - that it is more just to capture that publicly generated value for public benefit rather than letting it be enjoyed by private land owners who did nothing to earn it.

>>534278219
>What are you even saying? Are you clinically retarded? Your LVT doesn't make property worthless, the market will still dictate its value and it's rent price. Why wouldn't it?
I put too much weight onto the word "simply" and it caused confusion.
What I meant was that a landlord would have to improve their property to make money off of it, because they can no longer make money off of the pure ground rent itself.
>if property is centralised amongst the few and they can set rent prices however they please
Landlords can only charge what people can afford. Even if there was a massive housing monopoly, then they couldn't actually raise prices more than people currently pay, and then there'd be vacancy, ultimately from people simply being homeless.
LVTs ensure that the land must be improved upon or sold to someone who will. This will massively increase supply, thereby lowering the price of housing.
>Marxist economics is absolute pseudoscience.
Marx hated LVTs and Henry George.
>>534278431
>Just because I own something and the demand for it increases does not mean I owe anything to the people wanting (demanding) the thing I own.
Correct. To think otherwise falls into communism and trying to own the fruits of labor of another.
>Selling something, or renting something to someone, is not stealing, no matter how much commies would like to claim it is.
Correct.
The difference here is who created the value which is being demanded. Why does that demand exist? Does the demand exist because you created something? Does it exist because you invested in a business that created something? Or does the demand exist because you are acting as a tollbooth to access the creations of others?

>>534278538
You keep saying taxed at the value of the land, but you've yet to say how that value could be ascertained without taking into consideration its use.
>build a skyscraper
>tax the same as a single home
So, do you plan to lower the tax on skyscrapers to the same level as single family homes, or do you plan to raise the tax on single family homes to skyscraper levels?

>>534278759
>you are acting as a tollbooth to access the creations of others?
If you paid for those creations in a free trade you are absolutely justified for acting as a tollbooth to those creations. If you buy a home that someone else built you have every right to charge whatever you want for access to it.

>>534278939
>So, do you plan to lower the tax on skyscrapers to the same level as single family homes, or do you plan to raise the tax on single family homes to skyscraper levels?
That depends on what the demand for the land underlying those buildings are.
Suppose there's a skyscraper next to a single family house out in the middle of nowhere. In this case, the dividend would more than cover the LVT.
Now suppose they're in a more suburban area, the dividend would likely match the LVT.
Now suppose they're in the middle of a big city, now the LVT will be extremely high, and it is unlikely that the single family home will be able to generate enough revenue to cover the tax. So it will be sold, demolished and replaced with apartments or another business.
>how that value could be ascertained without taking into consideration its use.
The value does take into account its use, to some extent. Suppose some apartments could be built on a plot of land and would generate $10,000/month total (not realistic, but it'll suffice). 2 businesses are interested in building those apartments. After taking into account risks from bad tenants, profit margins, etc, one is willing to pay $4,000/month in tax, and the other is willing to pay $5,000/month. The land would thus be taxed at $5,000/month, regardless of whoever owns it.
In reality, you can't have a strictly market solution like this, but that's what the ideal rate looks like.
The value of land which is taxed would be assessed by the exact same method that we currently assess land. If you look at your property tax bill, there will be a value for the improvement and a value for the land. I want to tax the improvement value at 0%, and raise the tax on the land value, up to the point that someone is willing to pay in tax for that land ideally.
However, the tax doesn't need to go that high so as to not hurt existing owners, just a bit of this tax structure will drive the market incentives away from land speculation and rent seeking.

>>534278694
Im not even specifically against it, I'm just noticing that OP is make authoritative statements with no real logic behind why it would cause these things.
>>534278759
I just don't see it solving most of the things you're claiming. Im not even against the idea, as above, you're making authoritative statements, with only your word to qualify them. The LVT doesn't do anything to solve housing prices and affordability, you just say it does, but as I've said numerous times, if you monopolise real estate, then you can artificially inflate the prices and make money. If i owned all the houses, why would i improve them or build new houses, that would devalue the property I already own. You're acting as if you instate an LVT and then the intrinsic value of property ceases to exist, the market doesn't exist and supply and demand evaporates. The property is still valued on a market, paying an LVT doesn't stop me from speculating on empty lots or houses. The market forces are embedded and you seem to think they somehow disappear by instituting LVT.

>>534279121
>If you buy a home that someone else built you have every right to charge whatever you want for access to it.
I 100% agree with you here. The home was built by someone, and paid for either by you or a previous owner down the line. You rightfully purchased and own that wealth.
The problem is the land value upon which the house is built. You have not done anything to make that land valuable. The stores, job opportunities, quality of the people, etc, in the area are the main drivers of that land value. That's not wealth that you can rightfully own, because you did not create it, and neither did the person you purchased the house from.
To some extent, you do make the land of others valuable, because you too contribute to stores, job opportunities, quality of the people, etc of the community. The value that you have created through those actions has been captured by other landowners. If there was enough decent land available so that everyone owned roughly an equal share of the community, then this wouldn't be a problem. However, anyone who doesn't own land has no share in that wealth, and if you do want to gain a share of that wealth, you have to pay a massive sum for the land value in a mortgage.

>>534279257
>The value of land which is taxed would be assessed by the exact same method that we currently assess land
Well, currently, we value it by its use. If I build a 2,500sqft restaurant it will be valued completely different than if I build a 2,500sqft house.

>>534279411
>If i owned all the houses, why would i improve them or build new houses
Because you'll be taxed for the potential to improve the land. So if you don't build them, then you'll eventually go bankrupt and have to sell everything to someone else.
>The property is still valued on a market, paying a LVT doesn't stop me from speculating on empty lots or houses
It removes the potential profit from speculation. Any profit you could make from speculation will be taxed away. However, the profit you can make from actually improving the land will be untouched.
Roughly speaking, whatever you tax you get less of, and a LVT taxes the unimproved value of land, so you get less unimproved land.
>>534279503
>If I build a 2,500sqft restaurant it will be valued completely different than if I build a 2,500sqft house.
Yes, and that's a huge problem. We have a tax structure which disincentives improving land. That's why I've been saying over and over again to eliminate taxes on improvements, and only tax the land value.

>>534279666
>only tax the land value
But, you've failed to say how that value would be assessed without taking into consideration its use. You said we would value it the same as we do now, but now we value it based off of its use. That's why property zoned for commercial is valued completely different than property zoned for residential.

>>534279475
>That's not wealth that you can rightfully own
I disagree, just because someone does something to improve a property next to mine, therefore increasing my property's value, does not mean I owe any of the value of my property to my neighbor. And, it works both ways. If every store in my neighborhood closes and my property is then in less demand, it does not mean the closed store owners owe me anything for my loses. This whole line of thought is completely retarded.

>>534275848
What then stops the rich from forming cities everywhere? They're not smart enough to think about the consequences of taking all of the land and leaving no room to farm as they are blinded by greed. What prevents people with more money and power insisting that the land has the most use in their control and using it as they wish?

>>534279666
But I'm making enough money by owning all the houses, from rent, that i can just pay the taxes. Rent and value are symbiotic and are dictated by supply and demand, not the taxes paid on the property. You aren't actually answering any of my questions. You are just stating an opinion as fact.

>>534272195
fuck taxes, fuck the government, love me ownership, also fuck HOAs

>>534280032
>does not mean I owe any of the value of my property to my neighbor
What if you sell your house later on? What if you rent it out? Now you have money in your bank account that's only there because your neighbor improved their own land. You have captured some of the wealth that he created and put it in your bank account.
Even if you don't sell it, you still benefit because your neighbor's improvements increase your quality of life (generally speaking). More specifically, a new store opening up near you, or a new hospital, move theater, etc, all increase your quality of life. You never paid for any of those improvements, yet now by owning land you are blocking others from accessing those improvements. Whenever you sell your land, that increase in value is from those improvements, not anything you did.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than the nonsense we have now. Ideally, there'd be enough land for everyone to own a place to live near all of these quality of life improvements. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work this way, so you have to fake it somehow. Our current solution of just letting whoever wins own the land kind of works, but it also causes massive poverty for anyone not lucky/smart enough to win first.
>"The first rule of economics is that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics"
- Thomas Sowell
>But, you've failed to say how that value would be assessed without taking into consideration its use
To some extent, the use would be taken into account. There's a certain amount of profit that a plot of land can generate if it is maximally developed, and there is a certain market rate that someone is willing to pay in tax to own that land so that they can improve it to that maximum use, maintain it, and collect the profit. That market rate is the ideal LVT rate.
This is different from directly taxing improvements, which increases whenever you improve your land.

>>534280174
Demand for cities. But don't worry, there's nothing in this setup that stops them from obliterating single family homes and throwing up subsidized Section 8 housing which is a more valuable "improvement."

>>534280174
>They're not smart enough to think about the consequences of taking all of the land and leaving no room to farm as they are blinded by greed.
They can own all the land they like, but if they aren't doing something useful with it, then the tax rate will ruin them.
Bill Gates is the largest private owner of farmland. He would be ruined by this, because he isn't actually improving the farmland, he's just holding onto it for speculation and rent seeking. Even if he built cities on that land, nobody would want to live there, and he'd still have to pay the tax. So the best solution for him is to sell the land to a farmer, otherwise he'll go broke.
>What prevents people with more money and power insisting that the land has the most use in their control and using it as they wish?
The only way for someone to insist that land has more use for them is to offer up more money to pay in tax.
Larry Ellison owns a whole island in Hawaii IIRC. He would have to open up that island for tourism or housing, or sell it to someone who will, otherwise his entire fortune will be drained away by the LVT.
>>534280313
>But I'm making enough money by owning all the houses, from rent, that i can just pay the taxes.
This is fine, as the people renting those houses would get the land portion of their rent back through the dividend. This would enable them to save up enough to buy homes of their own.
Ideally, housing would be so cheap, decent, and abundant that nobody would particularly care about whether they own a house or not. In exactly the same way that modern people aren't worried about owning a farm otherwise they'll starve. So too should housing be so available that people aren't worried about homelessness even if they don't own a home.
>>534280336
>fuck taxes, fuck the government, love me ownership, also fuck HOAs
based. How about we repeal all HOAs, zoning laws, and taxes, other than the land portion of property taxes, then return the revenue back to the citizens as a dividend?

>>534280486
>But don't worry, there's nothing in this setup that stops them from obliterating single family homes and throwing up subsidized Section 8 housing which is a more valuable "improvement."
People don't want to live in section 8 shitholes, so they won't be willing to buy or rent them. So anyone building section 8 style housing anywhere other than the poorest areas would lose on their investment.
For exactly the same reason that you made this post, the fact that you want to live in a nice place, nice places will be built, because you're willing to pay more to live in a nice place rather than a shithole.
LVTs with a dividend make good places to live more abundant by eliminating the exorbitant upfront cost of land due to speculation and rent seeking. They force land to be put to a better use, and so the housing supply must increase until it reaches an equilibrium point.

>>534280622
Again. You are just describing communism with extra steps.
>we tax the land
>then you can buy a house pay rent with it
>if you buy a house you now have to pay tax on it thus making owning your home more expensive
Our land taxes often exempt primary residences. I just don't see this solving all the problems you are claiming it will. Land is finite and demand is ever increasing, yet you're telling me this tax structure will defy supply and demand.

>>534281001
Land is finite and demand is ever increasing, yet you're telling me this tax structure will defy supply and demand.
It will not defy supply and demand. It will increase the amount of land which is being improved, rather than merely used for speculation and rent seeking. LVTs are only useful precisely because land is finite, highly valuable, and its supply does not change.
A better solution than exempting primary residences is to return the revenue back as a dividend. This way, anyone using less than the land value that society can support will make more from the dividend than they pay in tax.
in this post >>534274127 there's a link to some statistics about the USA in 2021. If we had a LVT everywhere, for a single person, it would cover a house worth $250k. For 2 people (married couple for example), you would break even at a house worth $500k. So for the majority of regular people, you can get more from the dividend than you pay into it. Even if the dividend doesn't fully cover the land tax, it's almost certainly still a tax cut compared to the current property tax on improvements system.
The reason that this is better than exempting primary residences is because anyone with a home in the middle of a city center (a home worth multiple millions in the USA, not sure about AUS), would either pay a huge amount in taxes, or sell the house so that apartments can be built. In the latter case, the housing supply increases and so the COL goes down. In both cases, the people are compensated for their loss of use of the land through the dividend.

>>534280424
>What if you sell your house later on? What if you rent it out? Now you have money in your bank account that's only there because your neighbor improved their own land.
That's completely retarded. If someone's actions inadvertently increase the value of something I own, that does not mean I have stolen value from anyone or that I owe some of my objects value to anyone else.

Let's say I buy a Picasso painting. Then, some crazy person burns all the other Picasso paintings. That person has just increased the value of my painting exponentially, by decreasing the supply of Picasso paintings. It doesn't mean I owe the person who burnt the other paintings anything, or that I have "stolen" value from anyone.

>To some extent, the use would be taken into account
And, we're back to square one. How would you know what the use of a piece of property would be before any improvements are made on it? We're back to the skyscraper vs single home problem. Do you value the all land like there will be a skyscraper on it, or like there will be a single home on it?

I assume you're going to say something about the land being rural or urban. So, let's say we value all urban land like it could potentially have a skyscraper on it, and all rural land like it could only have a single home on it. What would stop me from building massive structures on the rural land, since it would be more cost effective?

As someone who has been fucked over by this whole property improvement tax scam, I'm all for what you're saying about not taxing improvements. I don't want any tax on property. I just don't understand how you plan to redistribute the tax burden evenly without taking into account the properties use. You would either have to value the property at it's least profitable use, at its most profitable use, or at some random point in between. How would you choose that random value between max use and minimum use when you have no idea what its use will be?

>>534281266
I just think it will end in rampant inflation by injecting that much money into the system. It also doesn't solve the core issue that land tax in it's current state is used to fill revenue demands that won't cease to exist. So either you need to cut those expenses out of every government budget. Or have two tiers of taxes on housing. Honestly I get that you're working off existing terminology but I think the usage of the word tax isn't appropriate. Maybe it's semantics, but I think it would be more palatable to market it as a levy, contributing to the fund. Saying its a tax implies the government is just taking it on as revenue.

In aus we have land taxes based on value of the land, only local council rates are based on property values, but thats distributed based on the needs of the council.

>>534281335
>or that I have "stolen" value from anyone.
That's because you have a right to own the painting, because Picasso painted it, who then sold it to someone, repeatedly until you bought it
With land, you're owning value which someone else created. It's as if Picasso painted a painting, and then you claimed to have a copyright or patent on some aspect of the painting, and whenever the painting was sold, you got the lion's share of the profit, leaving Picasso with the minimum profit he would accept before giving up painting altogether.
>How would you know what the use of a piece of property would be before any improvements are made on it?
Suppose there's an empty plot of land in the middle of a suburb filled with homes, and that the land doesn't have anything wrong with it. The land value of the surrounding homes would be roughly the same as the price of that empty plot of land. The tax rate would be whatever the landlord could charge in rent to lease out the empty plot of land to someone. All the homes would pay roughly that rate in taxes.
This really just gets into how countries currently do tax assessments.
As I've said before, the ideal tax rate is basically whatever the market is willing to pay in tax to own the land, but that's impractical to directly determine, so local counties have to use some reasonable method of approximation. Another approximation is to look at real estate sale prices and subtract the cost to build the building on it. That's not an exact number, but it's a rough estimate.
In general, it's the exact same way that counties do tax assessments for the land portion of property taxes today.
>What would stop me from building massive structures on the rural land, since it would be more cost effective?
Nothing, which is entirely the point. If you can build infrastructure on rural land and people are willing to pay for it, then you should do so, and you can get rich from doing so.

>>534281606
>I just think it will end in rampant inflation by injecting that much money into the system
You're not creating any new money. Every penny in the system comes from the tax, which comes from putting the land to good use.
You'll have rapid deflation in the housing market, because the price increases due to land speculation and rent seeking will be obliterated.
>So either you need to cut those expenses out of every government budget.
I agree with this.
>Saying its a tax implies the government is just taking it on as revenue.
In the USA, we don't really have tax vs levy.
What would occur is that the any tax revenue left over after government expenses would get distributed back to all citizens equally.
This also puts a stronger incentive towards limited government, because every penny the government wastes is a penny that doesn't show up in your monthly check.

Is Georgism compatible with Distributism?

>>534282009
I'd say it's compatible, in that Georgism doesn't have anything against Distributism.
Georgism doesn't particularly care who owns the means of production. All it's concerned with is ensuring that land value is owned by the community as a whole.
You can think of it like every citizen owning 1 and only 1 share of the land value of the country, which they get regular dividend payouts from.
Georgism can help establish Distributism because it can lower the cost of living and create a basic social safety net, without causing large economic disincentives. This will make it easier for small businesses to be established and grow.

>>534281952
I completely agree, but not many governments are going to be willing to give up that revenue.

Look im not an economist, but somewhere along the line, injecting that much cashflow is going to inflate prices. As you've already said, landlords charge what they can. I see them charging more to pay their tax, knowing people have the dividends and then we're back to square one. Your solution presupposes that deflation in housing will occur, but if the transition isn't smooth, it could skyrocket housing inflation.

>>534282252
>I completely agree, but not many governments are going to be willing to give up that revenue.
Tragic, but true. It seems to be that the best economic policies are the least politically popular ones. I think this is because good economic policies are ones that remove special privileges from everyone, rather than just transferring privileges from one group to another. There's a quote from star trek that I like: "they don't want to end exploitation, they want to be the exploiter".
>injecting that much cashflow is going to inflate prices.
I do see your point.
To restate it: if landlords always charge the most they can, and you give a dividend to people, then landlords will raise the rent, which will raise the tax, repeat until the money supply dries up
The missing piece here is competition in the land market, particularly with owning a place yourself rather than renting it out.
If a landlord wants to charge a huge rent due to the dividend checks, some people will be willing to pay that, but others will just move out somewhere cheaper. This will reach an equilibrium point. So it's possible that in the short term, rents for nice areas in cities could actually increase, but eventually they'd come down once new housing in the city is built, due to putting the city land to a better use.

>>534272195
>you will own nothing and be happy
Awesome. Sign me up!

>>534281765
The idea that you have "stolen" value from society because someone else's actions increase the value of something you own, is completely retarded as far as I am concerned.

Lol, so, I could just go to a suburb where a home rents for $2,000 a month, buy a lot, and build a strip club or bar, right in the middle of the suburb, that generates thousands of dollars a night while still only paying the tax on a single home? Sounds great to me. But, it's not going to work unless you massively increase the tax on the least profitable use of the land. Do you want to live in a pod? Because, that's how you would end up living in a pod. Basically what you're suggesting, especially the dividend part, could never work unless you increase the property tax rate significantly on the least use, which would be single homes. You're penalizing developers for not making the most profitable option with the property. I was a property developer and residential home builder for 15 years. If I had been penalized for building single homes, which you are suggesting, and given carte blanche to build whatever I wanted, I wouldn't have built single family homes. I would have built bars, strip clubs, and pod apartments with shared restrooms. And, every developer with a brain would do the same.

>>534282459
How about NOT taxing property and focus on shrinking the size of govt?
A smaller government wouldn't need our hard earned monies.

>>534282538
You'd hate Georgism then.
I'd force you to own 1 share of the land value of the country, while also massively decreasing the cost of living.
>>534282563
>buy a lot, and build a strip club or bar, right in the middle of the suburb, that generates thousands of dollars a night while still only paying the tax on a single home?
Yes, unironically. This is a good thing. You have improved the land by providing a service people are willing to pay for.
Suppose you build a successful business in some area. In order for people to live close enough to visit your businesses, then they have to buy a house or rent an apartment near your businesses. Part of the cost that those people have to pay is an increase in land value due to proximity to your business. Instead of you collecting that wealth which you created, the landlord collects the wealth, and you're left with whatever is left over. Under an LVT system, housing will be cheaper and people will have dividend checks to spend, so you will see much more business and profit. You're now getting most or all of the wealth that you created, rather than whatever was left over after the landlord got his share.
>I would have built bars, strip clubs, and pod apartments with shared restrooms.
That would go over well in high density areas like NYC, but if you build that out in the middle of nowhere, then nobody will be willing to live there.
People are willing to pay more to live in something better than a pod apartment, particularly in less developed areas.
Obviously, it sounds like you're willing to pay more, and so would many other people.
>>534282632
>How about NOT taxing property and focus on shrinking the size of govt?
I'd love to eliminate property taxes (just not land taxes) and reduce the size of the government to basically nothing.
>A smaller government wouldn't need our hard earned monies.
A LVT with a dividend incentivizes a smaller government, because the smaller the government, the bigger the dividend check.

>>534282632
What? No, surely if we just give more taxes to the government, they will fix all our problems.... They just need a little more taxes and everything will get better, right...right?

>>534272195
Vive Henry George! Aisha Gadaffi will win the Libyan presidency.

>>534282822
>Under an LVT system, housing will be cheaper and people will have dividend checks to spend

This is the equivalent of underpants gnomes.
>lower taxes
>?????????
>somehow make more in tax revenue to give away
This makes zero sense. You somehow plan to decrease taxes to the lowest use of the property, while simultaneously increasing the tax revenue enough to have excess tax revenue to give away? That's impossible. You will have to increase tax on the minimum use of the property. Which would mean no one would develop it to the minimum use. So, goodbye single family homes, or you would just increase the cost of the single family homes. There is absolutely no way this would increase single family homes and would only increase the cost of them.

There is no way to do what you are suggesting without increasing the tax on the minimum use of the property, which would increase the cost of the minimum use, single family homes.

Here's an idea, what if we stop taxing people for things they own. And, to make up for it we stop giving free shit to useless eaters?

File: hqdefault.jpg (30 KB, 480x360)

30 KB JPG

>>534283264
>You somehow plan to decrease taxes to the lowest use of the property, while simultaneously increasing the tax revenue enough to have excess tax revenue to give away?
I don't want to decrease it to the lowest use. In your terms, it would be the greatest use, but that's also not quite right. It's really just the market rate, no more complex than that. How much is the free market willing to pay in tax to own a particular plot of land? That would be the ideal tax rate for that plot of land. The complexity comes from the local government trying to accurately assess that amount.
>There is absolutely no way this would increase single family homes and would only increase the cost of them.
Like I said, people are willing to pay more to live in single family homes, and so there is an equilibrium point where it's more profitable to build single family homes rather than high density closets. You can build your super high density apartments out in a rural area, and go bankrupt because nobody is willing to live there.
The tax rate would be tuned towards whatever is most profitable for the area. So in a rural area, you'd be taxed fairly little, so you can afford to build massive homes. In a suburban area, it's middling, so you'd build medium sized homes, luxury apartments, and possibly townhouses. In an urban area, you'd build high density.
You build whatever is the most profitable for that area. Higher density does not always mean more profit if it's so shitty that nobody is willing to live there.
>Here's an idea, what if we stop taxing people for things they own.
I'd change this to stop taxing what people create, rather than own.

I am tired, so I'll be going to bed. At least you aren't wishing I'd die anymore.

File: 1763549850479340.gif (998 KB, 500x267)

998 KB GIF

>>534283619
If you taxed every piece of property the same and took away zoning, which you would have to do since I can now build bars in the middle of a subdivision, it would drive single family homes through the roof and absolutely no one would build them, except for the wealthy who built their own. Developers wouldn't touch them. The only thing stopping them from building duplexes, four fourplexes, and apartments is zoning, permitting costs and property taxes. Let's say I can rent a house for $2,000 a month, but I can rent each side of a duplex for $1,500 a month. Why would I build a single family home? There is almost infinite demand for housing.

What you're suggesting is basically the wild west for builders. It sounds good to me, but your tax plan would never work, or it would inflate the shit out of the minimum use properties, single family homes. With your system you would have to basically average the tax burden across all properties, to meet the same revenue that you have now, let alone to have extra to give away. If you averaged the property tax for any city, small town, or even any rural county, you would drive up the taxes on the cheaper properties, which are single family homes, a lot. Which would drive up the cost of renting or owning those properties.

>At least you aren't wishing I'd die anymore.

No, it's not so much that what you're saying is a bad, it just would never work. You would have to increase taxes on the minimum use properties to make it work, and that would inevitably increase the cost and availability of those properties. So, no, I don't want to kill you anymore, but I would try to knock some sense into you. What you're suggesting isn't feasible without consequence. I'm all for lowering property taxes to the lowest use amount, hell, I'm all for taking them away completely. But, doing that and then still having money to give away can't be done.

Have a good night, anon.

File: 1604763558231.jpg (74 KB, 720x405)

74 KB JPG

>How much is the free market willing to pay in tax to own a particular plot of land? That would be the ideal tax rate for that plot of land. The complexity comes from the local government trying to accurately assess that amount.
I recall watching an interview with some Georgist dude on TV in the early 2000's. His proposed solution was a simple system of self-declared land value.
1) You go to a government office, declare your land is worth X money. You then pay a tax based off that value.
2) Anyone can then come and offer to buy your land for X money.
3) If you don't want to sell, you can say your land is actually worth Y money. You then pay a tax based off that value.
4) If the government wants to buy your land (for a public project like airports, railways etc.), they can always pay the X amount. If you want to be a funny guy and say your land is worth $100, the government can at any time come and buy it for $100.

Of course, this is just TV slop from a wild time in Polish politics. It cannot actually be THAT simple, but it is something to consider.
Thanks for making this thread OP, a rare gem in an ocean of shit. Have a page 10 bump in return.