Idk if I told you about georgism but it’s an ideology which states that land as a favor of production belongs to everyone.
There are three factors of production - land, labor, and capital. Land is anything created by God or nature, capital is anything created by man, and labor is work done to produce a good or service.
A fact about taxes that leftists will seldom admit to is that taxes incur deadweight loss. Sometimes, that’s precisely the point as with a tobacco tax or a carbon tax. But a sales tax increases the price of goods, reducing sales.
Land has a fixed supply. All of the land that exists is all the land that will ever exist. A tax on the value of land would not reduce the amount of land available. Henry George supported the land value tax (LVT) for three reasons:
1. For the aforementioned reasons, LVT would not incur deadweight loss. Back then, the main source of revenue for the federal government was tariffs.
2. LVT would actually have a positive effect on the economy. When people buy land to speculate on its value, that land is being withheld. LVT would prevent land speculation.
3. We own our own labor and what we make from it. Profit derived from land is unearned because the landowner needs to do no work for the land to increase in value. Rather, the landowner needs speculators derives profit from everyone else. As George said, “Everyone works but the dirt lot”.
Tying this into your article, land is being used very inefficiently because landowners benefit from it. In a lot of liberal areas, development is obstructed in the name of environmentalism. A real environmentalist would consider the benefits of population density.
I hadn't ever heard the argument for a land value tax spelled out like that, but it makes a lot of sense.
I wish there was a political process where common sense stuff that's politically unpopular (like a land value tax, a carbon tax, etc.) could be realistically feasible.
Henry George garnered quite a following back in his day. He wasn’t quite egotistical enough to call himself a georgist, so his followers subscribed to the single tax movement. The movement was named after the belief that the land value tax could cover all government expenses with enough left over to fund a basic income. Honestly, I differ from the single tax movement in that respect as government spending is far higher today than it was back in the 19th century. The federal government also spends higher on top of running a deficit.
Idk if I told you about georgism but it’s an ideology which states that land as a favor of production belongs to everyone.
There are three factors of production - land, labor, and capital. Land is anything created by God or nature, capital is anything created by man, and labor is work done to produce a good or service.
A fact about taxes that leftists will seldom admit to is that taxes incur deadweight loss. Sometimes, that’s precisely the point as with a tobacco tax or a carbon tax. But a sales tax increases the price of goods, reducing sales.
Land has a fixed supply. All of the land that exists is all the land that will ever exist. A tax on the value of land would not reduce the amount of land available. Henry George supported the land value tax (LVT) for three reasons:
1. For the aforementioned reasons, LVT would not incur deadweight loss. Back then, the main source of revenue for the federal government was tariffs.
2. LVT would actually have a positive effect on the economy. When people buy land to speculate on its value, that land is being withheld. LVT would prevent land speculation.
3. We own our own labor and what we make from it. Profit derived from land is unearned because the landowner needs to do no work for the land to increase in value. Rather, the landowner needs speculators derives profit from everyone else. As George said, “Everyone works but the dirt lot”.
Tying this into your article, land is being used very inefficiently because landowners benefit from it. In a lot of liberal areas, development is obstructed in the name of environmentalism. A real environmentalist would consider the benefits of population density.
I hadn't ever heard the argument for a land value tax spelled out like that, but it makes a lot of sense.
I wish there was a political process where common sense stuff that's politically unpopular (like a land value tax, a carbon tax, etc.) could be realistically feasible.
Thanks for reading as always. :)
Henry George garnered quite a following back in his day. He wasn’t quite egotistical enough to call himself a georgist, so his followers subscribed to the single tax movement. The movement was named after the belief that the land value tax could cover all government expenses with enough left over to fund a basic income. Honestly, I differ from the single tax movement in that respect as government spending is far higher today than it was back in the 19th century. The federal government also spends higher on top of running a deficit.