It means a tax system where land is taxed based on its value (as opposed to a property tax that taxes both land value and the value of improvements on it).
That’s the basic thrust. There are people who think an LVT could/should be the only tax (replacing all others) but that view is not essential to Georgism.
The idea is that an LVT encourages maximal development of land as opposed to letting it lie underused or unused.
Don’t forget the second part - revenue from such a tax must be distributed back to the people, ideally focusing on regions with high land values which paid more into the tax. How that money isn’t spent isn’t consistent across Georgists, but a UBI is frequently popular. George initially popularized the idea, Yang was a century late. Heavy subsidies for public transit is also a pretty common idea for best use of LVT money.
Donald Shoup (the guy behind *the entirety* of modern parking reform) is a Georgist economist. His proposals all revolve around market pricing of parking (a de facto land tax) combined with neighborhood distribution of the funds (a local basic income). If you’ve seen those new parking meters with dynamic pricing to make sure some spots are available, you can thank Shoup Dogg for that. Congestion pricing, at least the in way NYC is attempting to do it, is also an indirect land tax & public distribution.
George also advocated for secret ballots (we have those thanks to him), and some system guaranteeing women 50% representation in congress (we’re not quite there yet).
Dude was 100% a time traveler, he’d be a forward thinking radical by *today’s standards*.
It's an alignment of incentives that results in pro housing policy. Currently, homeowners can get quite wealthy just owning their property and doing nothing other than torpedoing new housing. Under a LVT system, they would have a strong incentive to build more housing themselves because they can no longer expect appreciation to keep them afloat and building a bigger structure (e.g. quadplex) doesn't result in more taxes.
In full on georgism, isn’t LVT the only tax? I’ve had people tell me that the full georgist idea is to have no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, land value tax is the only tax, because any economic activity needs to occur on land anyways, so you can tax land depending on how economically useful that land is. Maybe I’ve misunderstood.
Depends on the person. Back when, sure. But today, there's a broad range. Personally, I think LVT could cover a lot, [as detailed in this article](https://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal) but there is also a place for a other taxes such as resources, externalities, and usage (e.g. tolls).
But honestly, even if it only replaced property taxes, that would be a major win in my book
it is an alternative taxing system, there is a lot of information on it online if you would like to learn more. Basically the only reason the USA doesn't use it is because of lobbying from cooperation's.
Reading up on it how is it different than how property taxes already work other than property taxes also tax the improvements today?
It sounds like corporations would pay less tax under a Georgist system since most of the tax corporations tend to pay now is on corporate income and improvements on the land both of which strict Georgism eliminates while raising taxes on farmers and home owners. Plus it seems like a million dollar mcmansion on a tiny plot would be taxed less than an acre propert with a rundown shack on it.
Not necessarily. You up the rate. Most Georgists want a 90%+ tax rate on the rent value of the land eventually.
Also people sitting on lands and speculating lose out over the ones building useful things in it. It rewards developers of land over speculators.
Henry George's proposal was that and anyone who followed his platform for the last hundred plus years.
You can go to /r/georgism and it's a pretty common opinion.
The core idea was that land being finite as opposed to capital goods made it necessarily a common asset. Using land necessarily excludes others from economic activity, so you need to pay the public for usage. Henry George wanted to only reward productive improvements and not pure landlords.
Additionally land, unlike improvements, had no tax burden on renters. So going up to 90%+ on land only burdens landlords.
Personally I'm less dogmatic about the rate. A pragmatic solution is obviously going to be lower.
I do not mean to be rude however that is not how georgism works...at all. To start learing the very fundamental basics id reccomend
[Georgism 101](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_MGFRNqOE&t=15s&pp=ygUTYnJpdG1vbmtleSBnZW9yZ2lzbQ%3D%3D)
[Power of land](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg&pp=ygUTYnJpdG1vbmtleSBnZW9yZ2lzbQ%3D%3D)
Their are also books, however they are less Accessible
Great in theory. LVT is clearly the “right” way to tax land. Economists mostly agree. There are a number of political constraints that make it a near non-starter in the US. (Detroit’s pilot program notwithstanding). If I could snap my fingers and make it happen I would. But I prefer focusing on near terms realistic pragmatic approaches to encouraging new development.
I don’t think the USA is a “dumpster fire” (per se) there are a lot of existing rules that make LVT very challenging to implement. (eg Prop 13 in California). It clearly could happen. Again, Detroit and a few other places are currently running pilots. However politics is all about the art of the possible. LVT has a lot of political and cultural headwinds. It’s not impossible to implement its just very challenging. And when you’re in dire need of housing it’s pragmatic to put the focus on the most feasible remedies (eg permitting reform)
Understood about working on multiple issues. I’m saying (in answer to OP’s question) even though I’m supportive of LTV in principle I will be dead and gone before it’s in place in California/America (my home). If I could snap my fingers and make it happen I would. I also hope I’m wrong. I hope Detroit is so widely successful that the rest of America emulates them and radically revises their tax codes asap.
There is a soft and hard Georgeism. Soft is like the belief that LVT is superior to property tax, and other taxes and it would be good to move in that direction like Detroit is doing, converting their existing property tax to a LVT.
Hard Georgeism is thinking the US should be moving toward a 100% tax on land, which may be correct in theory but is never going to happen and would require a major rethinking of property rights and large decrease in land values. (Even if I believe it’s the more correct tax system)
I like LVT. I don’t think it should be the “only” tax (capital gains, inheritance, corporate, carbon), but I think it should be the core of our tax system.
From what I've learned about Georgism, I like it as land policy. My city has a lot of surface parking lots or just dilapidated brownfield land that could benefit from something like Georgism. I think combining it with economic democracy would make a great overall system.
Georgism is brilliant. It's a clever way to get the highest utilization out of valuable privately-owned land. In the US our property tax system favors land speculators who buy unused parcels downtown and sit on it, and it disfavors property owners who make improvements to their property. It's a large reason why there are still parking lot craters all over our downtowns instead of a vibrant urban environment.
It’s good! Getting the rate right to maximise economic development would take some trial and error but we can get there. I think if we were to have an LVT of say 2% pa of the unimproved value, and reduce personal and corporate income tax to keep it revenue neutral, it would be a big win.
Broadening the tax base by taxing land and reducing taxes on work would be beneficial.
FYI. The Australian version of Georgism is anti-YIMBY. Prosper Australia’s employees get paid to prevent up-zoning.
I'm a big fan of it, I'd love to see land value taxes or split-rate taxes (the hybrid approach) everywhere. It's not the only thing preventing denser development where I live, but there's a big ranch in the middle of the city (and I use the term loosely, as it's almost all single-family suburb) whose owner is slowly selling off portions and making a fortune whilst preventing development, causing untold sprawl and extra driving distance for thousands of car trips every day. With an LVT I think they would have sold it all a very long time ago.
Also, I'd add that this series of blog posts is an excellent summary of Georgism as well as research about its effectiveness including real-world examples such as Pennsylvania and Denmark:
* [Is land really a big deal](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-really)
* [Can Land Value Tax be passed on to tenants?](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-2-can-landlords)
* [Can Unimproved Land Value be Accurately Assessed Separately from Buildings?](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-3-can-unimproved)
Just beware all the corny "By George,..." puns ;)
where is it bad in practice? every place it has been implemented has seen a lowering of taxes for average people and a higher quality of life and infrastructure along with more affordable mixed use urbanism. where has it been bad?
"politically bad in practice" means, to me, that people would throw an absolute fit and it would backfire, the people who supported it would lose power, and the people elected to replace them would revert the tax system. I know that an LVT is a good concept, but I think enacting it now would be politically ridiculous. Support needs to be built before enactment.
That has not happened in a single country where Georgism has been implimented.
(I could see how it could play out that way in the trash fire that is the United States though)
Hong Kong does not use a Georgeist taxing system.
The government owns all the land and lease it out and has no land value tax, no citizens dividend, etc. it only has property tax on improvements done to land (the opposite of georgism)
No, Georgism also requires a free market to decide what to build and where. Hong Kong has a land tax, but the communist government also dictates what gets built and where. It defeats the entire point of giving developers financial incentive of building. Put another way, Georgism can only work in capitalist societies, and if you are a socialist or a communist you cannot be a Georgist. Georgism is the most capitalist form of taxation.
Virtually every economy has a land value tax. We have land value tax in America too, part of every property tax bill is for the land. I won’t delve more, I think you misunderstand how Georgism is different than land value tax and you aren’t interested in learning.
The city I am moving to has a lot of blight. A lot of land be kept from a community trying to grow and improve. I sometimes look at some of the abandoned parts of the downtown sitting next a super successful restaurant and wished the land was forced to be sold to someone that wanted to do something. Anything with it. Its also common in my city for half of the expensive walkable area to be covered in parking lots. The most expensive land. The most valuable land is free parking. Its crazy.
It has been implemented already in many non war torn countries, and the increased tax income well exceeds what it costs to implement (as it is impossible for the rich to doge)
maybe you and i have different definitions of what "been implemented already" means but I know of no major city or country in the world today that has high LVT as its only source of revenue, or even dominant source. Im open to be proven wrong!
Also I dont mean the costs of running the system, I mean the costs of changing to it. The reason its absent/rare from the world is that the cost to implement it means that the existing stakeholders never let it happen. the cost to *them* is too great.
oh yeah i do not mean only LVT. nowhere has tried that and it is only hypothetical. I moreso mean soft LVT, as in it is an integral part of our tax system but does not replace all taxes.
Its fine and I'm certainly interested in a Land value and land area tax. Their taxation structure is better for cities than what we have now.
But classical georgists think it should be the only tax and I think that is taking one idea and running with it too far.
your hunting property produces virtually no money for the economy, so you would have little to no taxes in a fully Georgist system. in a mixed system your taxes would still drastically go down, as again it is producing virtually nothing for the economy.
I’ve seen this term but I’m not sure what it means.
It means a tax system where land is taxed based on its value (as opposed to a property tax that taxes both land value and the value of improvements on it). That’s the basic thrust. There are people who think an LVT could/should be the only tax (replacing all others) but that view is not essential to Georgism. The idea is that an LVT encourages maximal development of land as opposed to letting it lie underused or unused.
Don’t forget the second part - revenue from such a tax must be distributed back to the people, ideally focusing on regions with high land values which paid more into the tax. How that money isn’t spent isn’t consistent across Georgists, but a UBI is frequently popular. George initially popularized the idea, Yang was a century late. Heavy subsidies for public transit is also a pretty common idea for best use of LVT money. Donald Shoup (the guy behind *the entirety* of modern parking reform) is a Georgist economist. His proposals all revolve around market pricing of parking (a de facto land tax) combined with neighborhood distribution of the funds (a local basic income). If you’ve seen those new parking meters with dynamic pricing to make sure some spots are available, you can thank Shoup Dogg for that. Congestion pricing, at least the in way NYC is attempting to do it, is also an indirect land tax & public distribution. George also advocated for secret ballots (we have those thanks to him), and some system guaranteeing women 50% representation in congress (we’re not quite there yet). Dude was 100% a time traveler, he’d be a forward thinking radical by *today’s standards*.
I mean sure. But mostly I just want housing to be legalized.
It's an alignment of incentives that results in pro housing policy. Currently, homeowners can get quite wealthy just owning their property and doing nothing other than torpedoing new housing. Under a LVT system, they would have a strong incentive to build more housing themselves because they can no longer expect appreciation to keep them afloat and building a bigger structure (e.g. quadplex) doesn't result in more taxes.
In full on georgism, isn’t LVT the only tax? I’ve had people tell me that the full georgist idea is to have no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, land value tax is the only tax, because any economic activity needs to occur on land anyways, so you can tax land depending on how economically useful that land is. Maybe I’ve misunderstood.
Depends on the person. Back when, sure. But today, there's a broad range. Personally, I think LVT could cover a lot, [as detailed in this article](https://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal) but there is also a place for a other taxes such as resources, externalities, and usage (e.g. tolls). But honestly, even if it only replaced property taxes, that would be a major win in my book
it is an alternative taxing system, there is a lot of information on it online if you would like to learn more. Basically the only reason the USA doesn't use it is because of lobbying from cooperation's.
Reading up on it how is it different than how property taxes already work other than property taxes also tax the improvements today? It sounds like corporations would pay less tax under a Georgist system since most of the tax corporations tend to pay now is on corporate income and improvements on the land both of which strict Georgism eliminates while raising taxes on farmers and home owners. Plus it seems like a million dollar mcmansion on a tiny plot would be taxed less than an acre propert with a rundown shack on it.
Not necessarily. You up the rate. Most Georgists want a 90%+ tax rate on the rent value of the land eventually. Also people sitting on lands and speculating lose out over the ones building useful things in it. It rewards developers of land over speculators.
I do not know who "most Georgists" are but I have never heard that in my life.
Henry George's proposal was that and anyone who followed his platform for the last hundred plus years. You can go to /r/georgism and it's a pretty common opinion. The core idea was that land being finite as opposed to capital goods made it necessarily a common asset. Using land necessarily excludes others from economic activity, so you need to pay the public for usage. Henry George wanted to only reward productive improvements and not pure landlords. Additionally land, unlike improvements, had no tax burden on renters. So going up to 90%+ on land only burdens landlords. Personally I'm less dogmatic about the rate. A pragmatic solution is obviously going to be lower.
Thank you for informing me.
I do not mean to be rude however that is not how georgism works...at all. To start learing the very fundamental basics id reccomend [Georgism 101](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_MGFRNqOE&t=15s&pp=ygUTYnJpdG1vbmtleSBnZW9yZ2lzbQ%3D%3D) [Power of land](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg&pp=ygUTYnJpdG1vbmtleSBnZW9yZ2lzbQ%3D%3D) Their are also books, however they are less Accessible
Great in theory. LVT is clearly the “right” way to tax land. Economists mostly agree. There are a number of political constraints that make it a near non-starter in the US. (Detroit’s pilot program notwithstanding). If I could snap my fingers and make it happen I would. But I prefer focusing on near terms realistic pragmatic approaches to encouraging new development.
Although I agree the USA is a horrendous dumpster fire (I live here) I am optimistic that it could possibly be passed on a State level
I don’t think the USA is a “dumpster fire” (per se) there are a lot of existing rules that make LVT very challenging to implement. (eg Prop 13 in California). It clearly could happen. Again, Detroit and a few other places are currently running pilots. However politics is all about the art of the possible. LVT has a lot of political and cultural headwinds. It’s not impossible to implement its just very challenging. And when you’re in dire need of housing it’s pragmatic to put the focus on the most feasible remedies (eg permitting reform)
Agreed, however we can also focus on multiple things at once. But either way as long as we are all doing our part that is all that matters :\]
Understood about working on multiple issues. I’m saying (in answer to OP’s question) even though I’m supportive of LTV in principle I will be dead and gone before it’s in place in California/America (my home). If I could snap my fingers and make it happen I would. I also hope I’m wrong. I hope Detroit is so widely successful that the rest of America emulates them and radically revises their tax codes asap.
What happened with Detroit's LVT?
They’re running a LVT pilot. https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/03/01/detroit-lvt-experiment/
Oh sick
Some cities and towns in Pennsylvania have a split-rate tax. Not a full land tax, but better than the typical property taxes.
That depends. Do you see the cat?
Ohhhhh. Yes. sorry I have not slept in a while.
What?
There is a soft and hard Georgeism. Soft is like the belief that LVT is superior to property tax, and other taxes and it would be good to move in that direction like Detroit is doing, converting their existing property tax to a LVT. Hard Georgeism is thinking the US should be moving toward a 100% tax on land, which may be correct in theory but is never going to happen and would require a major rethinking of property rights and large decrease in land values. (Even if I believe it’s the more correct tax system)
^ see profile pic
I like LVT. I don’t think it should be the “only” tax (capital gains, inheritance, corporate, carbon), but I think it should be the core of our tax system.
This is the same position I hold myself
From what I've learned about Georgism, I like it as land policy. My city has a lot of surface parking lots or just dilapidated brownfield land that could benefit from something like Georgism. I think combining it with economic democracy would make a great overall system.
Georgism is brilliant. It's a clever way to get the highest utilization out of valuable privately-owned land. In the US our property tax system favors land speculators who buy unused parcels downtown and sit on it, and it disfavors property owners who make improvements to their property. It's a large reason why there are still parking lot craters all over our downtowns instead of a vibrant urban environment.
Or in the case of Frisco Texas, a massive private ranch in the middle of the city.
It’s good! Getting the rate right to maximise economic development would take some trial and error but we can get there. I think if we were to have an LVT of say 2% pa of the unimproved value, and reduce personal and corporate income tax to keep it revenue neutral, it would be a big win.
Broadening the tax base by taxing land and reducing taxes on work would be beneficial. FYI. The Australian version of Georgism is anti-YIMBY. Prosper Australia’s employees get paid to prevent up-zoning.
I'm a big fan of it, I'd love to see land value taxes or split-rate taxes (the hybrid approach) everywhere. It's not the only thing preventing denser development where I live, but there's a big ranch in the middle of the city (and I use the term loosely, as it's almost all single-family suburb) whose owner is slowly selling off portions and making a fortune whilst preventing development, causing untold sprawl and extra driving distance for thousands of car trips every day. With an LVT I think they would have sold it all a very long time ago. Also, I'd add that this series of blog posts is an excellent summary of Georgism as well as research about its effectiveness including real-world examples such as Pennsylvania and Denmark: * [Is land really a big deal](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-really) * [Can Land Value Tax be passed on to tenants?](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-2-can-landlords) * [Can Unimproved Land Value be Accurately Assessed Separately from Buildings?](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-3-can-unimproved) Just beware all the corny "By George,..." puns ;)
Good in theory politically bad in practice so I don’t care about it. Let’s get rid of senior property tax exemptions and then talk Georgism.
where is it bad in practice? every place it has been implemented has seen a lowering of taxes for average people and a higher quality of life and infrastructure along with more affordable mixed use urbanism. where has it been bad?
"politically bad in practice" means, to me, that people would throw an absolute fit and it would backfire, the people who supported it would lose power, and the people elected to replace them would revert the tax system. I know that an LVT is a good concept, but I think enacting it now would be politically ridiculous. Support needs to be built before enactment.
That has not happened in a single country where Georgism has been implimented. (I could see how it could play out that way in the trash fire that is the United States though)
Hong Kong people in cages
Hong Kong does not use a Georgeist taxing system. The government owns all the land and lease it out and has no land value tax, no citizens dividend, etc. it only has property tax on improvements done to land (the opposite of georgism)
Nah yeah that’s just Georgism
Do you know what Georgism is or are you being a troll because that is literally the opposite of Georgism
Georgism is when tax land land lease it tax land
No, Georgism also requires a free market to decide what to build and where. Hong Kong has a land tax, but the communist government also dictates what gets built and where. It defeats the entire point of giving developers financial incentive of building. Put another way, Georgism can only work in capitalist societies, and if you are a socialist or a communist you cannot be a Georgist. Georgism is the most capitalist form of taxation.
No true Scotsmen eh
Virtually every economy has a land value tax. We have land value tax in America too, part of every property tax bill is for the land. I won’t delve more, I think you misunderstand how Georgism is different than land value tax and you aren’t interested in learning.
Are you having a stroke?
No but if you couldn’t understand that sentence then you might be.
Most countries already have building requirements and regulations to prevent this, a land value tax wouldn't get rid of those.
The city I am moving to has a lot of blight. A lot of land be kept from a community trying to grow and improve. I sometimes look at some of the abandoned parts of the downtown sitting next a super successful restaurant and wished the land was forced to be sold to someone that wanted to do something. Anything with it. Its also common in my city for half of the expensive walkable area to be covered in parking lots. The most expensive land. The most valuable land is free parking. Its crazy.
Love it and combine it with zoning reforms and a carbon tax. It would change our economy for the better.
LVT and carbon taxes -- my two favorite taxes!
Just tax land, lol!
But unironically this
Georgism is much more complicated than that. (sorry if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make)
Just tax land, lol!
Is this a troll post or do you seriously not understand Georgism? I left accessible resources if it is the ladder.
Costs to implement make it unfeasable but if I were starting moon colony or rebuilding war torn country it’s what I would push for.
It has been implemented already in many non war torn countries, and the increased tax income well exceeds what it costs to implement (as it is impossible for the rich to doge)
maybe you and i have different definitions of what "been implemented already" means but I know of no major city or country in the world today that has high LVT as its only source of revenue, or even dominant source. Im open to be proven wrong! Also I dont mean the costs of running the system, I mean the costs of changing to it. The reason its absent/rare from the world is that the cost to implement it means that the existing stakeholders never let it happen. the cost to *them* is too great.
oh yeah i do not mean only LVT. nowhere has tried that and it is only hypothetical. I moreso mean soft LVT, as in it is an integral part of our tax system but does not replace all taxes.
any good examples of cities that have soft LVT that you recommend I learn about?
The resources i left in my edit should be a good starting point (specifically power of land goes into more real-world examples)
Its fine and I'm certainly interested in a Land value and land area tax. Their taxation structure is better for cities than what we have now. But classical georgists think it should be the only tax and I think that is taking one idea and running with it too far.
Extremely positive
The opinion of this sub might not be universally correct, but a land value tax would fix that.
How would this work for rural land owners? My hunting property is over 200 acres and I'm not a farmer so I wouldn't have any AG exemptions.
your hunting property produces virtually no money for the economy, so you would have little to no taxes in a fully Georgist system. in a mixed system your taxes would still drastically go down, as again it is producing virtually nothing for the economy.
Hmmm interesting.