>don't tax productivity
>tax only the gains of natural monopoly

Basically he said if you own exclusive rights to some part of nature, only those gains should be taxed. so no tax on income, sales, payroll, buildings, etc. anything left after funding govt goes to ubi. Alaska already does this partially with their permanent fund. oil companies extract oil, keep the value they add through extraction, but the natural value of the oil itself funds everyone's dividend. same logic applies to land/location monopoly. you want exclusive use of prime real estate? pay society for hoarding that location. would make housing actually affordable since boomers couldn't just sit on the best spots waiting for number go up. they'd have to downsize (or pay up), letting new families live near work, schools, parks etc instead of 2 hour commutes.

Marx and George went at it back in the day. George called marx "prince of muddleheads" and marx called george a last ditch attempt to save capitalism. funny thing is Marx died basically unknown while george was filling stadiums. history flipped their fame but every marxist experiment has faceplanted while George's theories keep getting proven out.

with ai gutting jobs, blackrock buying everything, and zoomers priced out forever, george is looking more and more like an economic prophet.

anyone actually looked into this? even if you don't rent you're still paying landlords through every business that passes costs to you. seems like this addresses the actual problem instead of larping about socialism vs capitalism while rent seekers laugh at us all

For me it was Henry Clay

>>509547135 (OP)
oh and before you retards start:
>muh property rights
you still own property, just pay for the location privilege. you built a house? keep 100% of that value tax free. you just happened to buy land that became valuable because everyone else built stuff around you? pay up

>that's communism
its literally the opposite. commies want to take what you produce. george wants you to keep everything you produce and only pay for what nobody produced (land). even milton friedman called it the "least bad tax"

>but muh family farm
farmland in bumfuck nowhere has almost no location value. this hits urban rent seekers not rural landowners. your grandpappy's 40 acres won't get taxed to death, but that parking lot in manhattan will

>won't kill investment
what investment? sitting on empty lots waiting for number go up isn't investment. actual building and improving land would be tax free. you'd see more development not less

>how do you value land
we already do it for property tax assessments, just subtract the building value. not rocket science

funny how both leftoids and lolberts hate this idea. almost like the entire political spectrum is designed to protect rent seekers while you argue about pronouns and tax rates

>>509547135 (OP)
George was wrong and Marx was right. Georgism is just capitalism. It does not remove the internal contradictions of class struggle, overproduction, competition, or even monopolization under capitalism that leads to boom and bust cycles.

>>509547315
oh and one more thing

the real blackpill is that we already had georgist cities and they worked. arden delaware, fairhope alabama, bunch of places in pennsylvania. lowest inequality, best infrastructure, high quality of life. but guess what happened? landlords and banks lobbied to kill it every single time. can't have the wagies figuring out they don't need to pay half their income to some trust fund faggot. so they buried george's ideas and gave you the federal reserve instead

now you get to choose between republicans (tax cuts for blackrock) and democrats (more gibs funded by taxing your wages). both sides keep the land racket running while you fight about trannies and immigrants. singapore and estonia still do versions of this btw. weird how the most successful small countries keep "discovering" the same idea. but sure keep believing the solution is [current year political meme] while housing goes to infinity

if you actually want to unfuck society the answer was published in 1879. but you won't read it because some youtube grifter told you otherwise lmao getting played

>>509547327
>marxist cope

georgism literally can't have overproduction crises because purchasing power isn't getting siphoned off by rent seekers. workers keep their full wages, spend them, demand stays high. the boom/bust cycle is mostly just land speculation bubbles popping (2008 anyone?)

class struggle? yeah there's still capital and labor but when you remove the landlord class extracting from both sides suddenly they can actually negotiate fairly. Singapore has some of the highest wages in the world btw

"monopolization under capitalism" - you mean like how we have monopolization right now under your supposed non-georgist system? at least georgism stops the most fundamental monopoly (land/location) which all other monopolies depend on

look at actual georgist experiments. they didn't have boom/bust cycles, they had steady growth until landlords shut them down. funny how that works

>>509547483
>but guess what happened? landlords and banks lobbied to kill it every single time.
Hmmm, that's weird. You know I think that Marx guy had a few things to say about them.

>>509547135 (OP)
Making a sustainable economic system isn't difficult considering how immensely productive oil is, the only difficulty is scaling the system or dealing with sudden spikes in population because life is too easy and there's no more selection. You can't just say 'don't have kids and you get UBI' and expect most people to nod along with it, or even comply because some people will still look for sex. It's astounding how fast a population can multiply because people take far too long to die off, even if you keep just at replacement rate like the nuclear family model your kids will also have had two kids by the time your parents die. That means population will double far past the point of it contributing any meaningful production, at this point we're discussing the aesthetics of society rather than the economic model since there's no scarcity to speak of. Government should be replaced by HoAs and everyone made into amateur landscapers to qualify for UBI. Not all land is valuable, but most land is livable if people have access to a water source and resources to build with. Unfortunately, urbanism is still dominant due to it simply being more convenient to pile up next to a major water source rather than build massive aqueduct structures. Perhaps you could convert those UBI recipients into seasonal maintenance workers as well, because government has an immense amount of funding leftover with how productive oil is.

>>509547623
So, yeah, Georgism is just means you let bourgeoisie exist to exploit everyone. Thanks for confirming it. You're nothing than traitors to the proletariat. None of the problems are talking will ever be solved unless you actually kill CEOs, landlords, and other exploitative classes. Marxism is right because it makes this obvious while exposing you henchman of the ruling class. Death to all GEORGISTS.

>>509547315
noone would have ever build skyscrpaers in New York with that law

>>509548001
yeah marx wrote about banks and landlords. George did too, way more specifically actually. Difference is george understood that finance capital's power comes from land monopoly. banks get rich funding land speculation and issuing mortgages on inflated land values

Kill the land monopoly and banks shrink back to their actual purpose (business loans, not rent extraction). Marx wanted to nationalize banks which just makes bureaucrats the new rent seekers. george wanted to remove what makes banks parasitic in the first place. also there's nothing that says we have to keep private banks, make them public utilities like north dakota, georgism is find with that.

>>509548353
George was an idiot who paid lip service to the bourgeoisie. None of the problems you are talking about will ever get solved unless you kill them.
Because georgists protect the bourgeoisie, you must execute them too. Lenin was right to shoot people like you.

>>509548215
>death to all georgists

lmao there it is. marx brain always ends at "just kill everyone bro"

"let bourgeoisie exist to exploit" - except we literally remove their ability to exploit by taking away monopoly rents. a CEO without land rents is just a wage cuck with extra steps. but you'd rather kill him and give his power to some party official who'll do the exact same thing

every marxist revolution: kill the landlords and ceos -> party officials become new landlords and ceos -> "that wasn't real communism" -> repeat

georgism: make exploitation economically impossible -> no killing required -> actually works when tried

but hey good luck with your revolution larping. I'm sure posting death threats on a mongolian basket weaving forum will bring about the workers paradise any day now

>>509547135 (OP)
I think that people who are concerned about tax are retards who don't understand how the monetary system works.

>>509548311
nah it’s the opposite. land value tax actually pushes people to build bigger, not just sit on empty lots. if you’re paying for the land either way, you wanna stack it high to make it worth it.
empty land is what kills skyscrapers, not the tax.

>>509548466
>except we literally remove their ability to exploit by taking away monopoly rents.
I'm sure they'll just sit around and let that happen because they respect the rule of law and the will of the people.

>>509548466
>lmao there it is. marx brain always ends at "just kill everybody"
But they didn't. Lenin didn't kill everyone. Neither did Mao or Stalin. They killed landlords, millionaires, and serf lords. And guess what? Life got better for everyone. Life expectacy, literacy, poverty, homelessnes, crime all either disappeared or got better.
Their ideas actually worked and improved society. "Georgism" is just letting exploitation happen under the guise of humanism and bourgeoisie non-sense.

>>509548574
wait its just a property tax?

>>509548661
See why Georgism is retarded? They think people who only exist because of exploitation are going to just allow this to happen. Georgists are fucking retards just like lolbs and anarchists.

>>509547135 (OP)
Land is plentiful and a poor investment relative to the stockmarket, the issue isn't a tiny land trust holding it all. What Georgism fundamentally promises is removing monopoly from all landownership, which includes individuals and family units that need land long-term to be healthy. Institute Georgism and the end result will be maximization of utility of land in the form of sardine can apartments/condos, because the owners can afford to pay more in taxes than the family who doesn't use their land for rent-extraction.

>>509547315
>>509548574
please anlighten us which city has been improved by property taxes

>>509548661
>thinks he made a point

wait so your argument is that georgism worked so well it had to be forcibly stopped, therefore we should try marxism which fails on its own every time? galaxy brain take my guy. yeah they lobbied to kill it. they also lobbied to kill unions, minimum wage, and child labor laws. guess what? those still exist because people kept pushing. difference is georgism actually eliminates landlords economically instead of just shooting them and creating new ones

you: "the powerful will never let reform happen, so we need revolution"
also you: [can't explain why every revolution just creates new powerful elites]

at least when georgism gets sabotaged it's because it was working. when marxism fails it's because surprise surprise, giving absolute power to the state doesn't create a classless society

>>509548663
>They killed landlords, millionaires, and serf lords
>life expectancy got better

yeah life expectancy really improved for those 20 million ukrainians. and the 45 million chinese during the great leap forward. very cool improvement

>literacy got better
from medieval serf levels to barely functional. meanwhile georgist singapore went from third world to first world in one generation without the mass graves

>homelessness disappeared
because they made it illegal and sent you to gulag. wow problem solved. next you'll tell me north korea solved obesity

funny how you need to kill millions to achieve what estonia did with a land tax. but I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit if you think state capitalism with gulags is better than actual prosperity

the absolute state of tankies thinking 40 million dead is a reasonable price for basic literacy programs

>>509548694
>>509548805
Can you not read? LAND VALUE tax not property tax. completely different thing

Property tax = punishes you for building/improving. build a house, tax goes up. fix your roof, tax goes up. retarded system

land value tax = only taxes the unimproved land value. build a skyscraper or leave it empty, same tax. encourages development instead of speculation

cities that used it: Singapore (first world from nothing), hong kong (before china fucked it), parts of pennsylvania still use split-rate taxation and have way less blight than neighboring cities

Harrisburg PA went from bankrupt shithole to thriving after shifting toward land tax in the 80s. allentown did the same. pittsburgh used it for decades during its best years

just stop the subsidizing and the money printing while ta tarriffing predatory economies and society's problems disappear

>>509548753
>land is plentiful
tell that to anyone trying to buy within 2 hours of their job. "just move to nebraska bro" isn't an answer when all the jobs are in like 10 metro areas

>poor investment relative to stocks
SF land outperformed the S&P 500 by 2x over the last 20 years. Manhattan land crushes stocks. you're confusing rural land with location value

>sardine can apartments
backwards. right now property tax PUNISHES building up, so you get sprawl and parking lots. LVT makes hoarding empty lots expensive so people either build or sell. Families who actually use their land pay LESS because they're not sitting on empty appreciating lots.

a family living in their house pays lvt on one plot and keeps 100% of their home's value untaxed. some asshole sitting on 10 properties waiting for appreciation bleeds money. guess who sells first?

you want to see sardine cans? look at nyc or sf where property tax encourages sprawl and nimbyism while speculators warehouse empty units. Pennsylvania cities with split-rate taxation have more single family homes and less blight than their neighbors.

LVT doesn't force density, it just stops rewarding people for creating artificial scarcity. Huge difference.

>>509549039
I think we have that law in Germany actually
we get taxes by land value
and the cities are still expensive

>>509547135 (OP)
>George's theories keep getting proven out
Give examples.

>>509549288
No you don't lmao. You have grundsteuer which is a property tax based on 1964 values (1935 in the east). They literally just reformed it because the old values were so fucked.

even the new system starting 2025 is still taxing buildings + improvements, not pure land value. completely different from what george proposed

actual lvt means if you have an empty lot next to a skyscraper, you both pay the same tax. does Germany do that? no. Your empty lot pays almost nothing while the developed property pays more
plus georgism means ONLY land tax, zero tax on income/sales/productivity. you're paying 42% income tax + 19% VAT on top of your fake "land value tax"

This is like saying "we tried communism" when you have a 35% income tax. Words have meanings hans. Show me one german city where land speculation is impossible because holding empty prime real estate costs the same as developing it. I'll wait.

>>509547327
>no class struggle
Landowners vs labor is not a struggle? Sun Yat-Sen understood the importance of seizing the potential of the land as did Mao and Chiang Kai-Shek. Land reform was about the only thing the Taiwanese and Mainland governments could agree on. Though i am opposed to making life better for the bourgeoisie since that is the class that holds the Jewish infestation

>>509549523
Im pretty sure you are wrong
grundsteuer is quite low and more dependend on how much land you own
its not a property tax like in the US at all

>>509549186
>tell that to anyone trying to buy within 2 hours of their job. "just move to nebraska bro" isn't an answer when all the jobs are in like 10 metro areas
Land in urban areas is already taxed at a higher rate due to its increased value.
>SF land outperformed the S&P 500 by 2x over the last 20 years. Manhattan land crushes stocks. you're confusing rural land with location value
What are you smoking? 2025 vs 2005 is roughly a 100% ROI for SF housing, vs 450% ROI for SP500. And it's obvious why that would be the case, because land/housing requires far more upkeep than stocks. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>backwards. right now property tax PUNISHES building up, so you get sprawl and parking lots.
No it doesn't. The fact that improved value of land is taxed doesn't mean that people don't want improved land. New housing developments are everywhere across the country outside of regulated/zoned NIMBY areas.
>a family living in their house pays lvt on one plot and keeps 100% of their home's value untaxed. some asshole sitting on 10 properties waiting for appreciation bleeds money. guess who sells first?
The tax the family pays on the land itself will be exorbitant. The landlord pays more in tax, but can always jack up rents except in major recessions (during which both groups tend to sell at a loss).

I do wonder how Detroit would do with their proposed land value tax reforms...

>>509549328
Singapore went from third world shithole to richest country in asia after implementing 90% land value capture on new development. Estonia recovered from soviet collapse faster than any baltic state using lvt. hong kong before China fucked it built the world's best infrastructure funded by land rents.

Harrisburg PA was literally bankrupt in 1982, switched to split-rate taxation (heavier on land than buildings), became thriving city. same with allentown. pittsburgh used it during its best decades.

meanwhile every city that relies on income/sales tax is either broke or has homeless camps everywhere. california has the highest income taxes and still can't fund shit because prop 13 lets boomers pay 1978 property tax rates

2008 crash? land bubble. 1990s japan crash? land bubble. every "financial crisis" is just banks overleveraging on inflated dirt prices. george predicted this exact pattern in 1879
alaska permanent fund pays every resident $1-3k/year from oil revenues. norway's sovereign wealth fund worth $250k per citizen from north sea oil. both prove resource rents can fund ubi instead of making oligarchs

>>509549523
I just looked it up
they changed the law so that land that is not used can get taxed more

>There is a significant housing shortage, particularly in urban areas. The resulting rise in land values is increasingly being used to hold land ready for development as speculation. Land is sometimes purchased only to wait for an increase in value and then resell it at a profit. This speculation in building land prevents the construction of urgently needed housing. This problem was also addressed with the property tax reform. In the future, municipalities will be able to set a higher assessment rate for land ready for development but undeveloped if no construction takes place on it. This so-called property tax C thus makes speculation more expensive and creates financial incentives to actually create housing on land ready for development.

https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/FAQ/faq-die-neue-grundsteuer.html

>>509547327
Land ownership versus non has literally been the definition of class for thousands of years you disingenuous fuck.

>>509549652
>Land in urban areas is already taxed at a higher rate
property tax ≠ land value tax you fucking retard. property tax goes up when you BUILD. lvt stays the same whether you have a parking lot or skyscraper.

>2025 vs 2005 is roughly a 100% ROI for SF housing
Convenient cherry picking the dates after 2008 crash lmao. SF land went from $200/sqft in 2000 to $1400/sqft today. do the math genius. also "upkeep" on empty land is zero, that's the whole point

>New housing developments are everywhere
yeah in the suburbs 2 hours from jobs because that's where land is cheap. meanwhile prime urban land sits as parking lots and single story buildings because property tax makes development expensive but holding cheap

>The tax the family pays on the land itself will be exorbitant
Wrong. family home = small lot. land value per sqft in residential areas is fraction of commercial. plus no income tax means they keep their whole paycheck. do you even understand how assessment works?

>landlord can always jack up rents
Not when holding empty units costs the same as rented ones. lvt forces you to use land productively or sell to someone who will. that's literally the entire mechanism.

you're arguing against shit you don't even understand. read one page of george before posting again.

>>509549626
>>509549827
>grundsteuer is quite low and more dependent on how much land you own
yeah that's... not land value tax hans. "how much land" = acreage, not VALUE. empty lot in berlin center pays same as farmland in brandenburg under your system. that's the opposite of what george wanted

>they changed the law so land that is not used can get taxed more
Cool so they added a tiny penalty for the most extreme speculation while keeping the whole broken system. That's like putting a bandaid on cancer.

Real lvt means ALL land pays based on location value, developed or not. Not some special penalty tax, not based on acreage, based on what the land would rent for. Singapore charges 16% annually on land value. Your "property tax C" is what, slightly higher rate on empty lots only?

Plus you still tax income at 42% and VAT at 19%. Georgism means ONLY land tax, zero tax on productivity. germany just has a shitty property tax with extra steps.

show me one german city where it's impossible to speculate because holding prime real estate empty costs as much as developing it. you can't because you don't have lvt, you have bureaucratic cope

>>509549954
>lvt stays the same whether you have a parking lot or skyscraper.
At that instance, not on a scale of time that incorporates changes in market equilibrium. If land can sustain housing with a base rent of $1500/mo, it will be valued higher for its profit potential, and people who choose not to extract rents from their land will be punished.
>Convenient cherry picking the dates after 2008 crash lmao.
20 years was your cherry picking retard. If you go with 2000 you're technically right because it's the top of the dotcom bubble, but if you pick most other years after you're wrong. Moreover, you still have to pay annual tax on that land over time, something you don't have to do when holding stocks.
>meanwhile prime urban land sits as parking lots and single story buildings because property tax makes development expensive but holding cheap
That isn't a real thing. More units on the same land will be more profitable all else equal. Urban centers are full of the tallest buildings.
>Wrong. family home = small lot.
Wrong. A suburban single-family neighborhood has far less land-efficient land use than an apartment complex. 10 suburban 2000 sqft 1-story homes on 1/6 acre lots could be bulldozed, replaced with 42 3-story condo/apartment units.
>Not when holding empty units costs the same as rented ones.
Sure, the landlord can (and often will) cut rents as well to keep renters, obviously.
>you're arguing against shit you don't even understand.
You don't even understand basic market forces bro

>>509550075
>empty lot in berlin center pays same as farmland in brandenburg under your system
no we have a "Bodenrichtwert" which calculates how much the land is worth
and that determines how much tax you pay
therfore we have very much a landvalue tax, as far as I understand

>>509550290
>If land can sustain housing with a base rent of $1500/mo, it will be valued higher
No shit sherlock that's the point. tax captures that value instead of letting speculators pocket it. the family living there still pays less total than current system (no income/sales/payroll/capital gains/etc taxes remember?)

>20 years was your cherry picking retard
I said land beats stocks over long term in prime locations. pick any 30+ year period for manhattan or sf core or any major city. Also "annual tax on land" - yeah that goes to society instead of some trust fund faggot, that's the whole idea.

>More units on the same land will be more profitable
Then why are there still parking lots in downtown sf? because property tax punishes building (pay more tax) while rewarding speculation (pay almost nothing). lvt reverses this

>suburban single-family neighborhood has far less land-efficient use
Exactly why suburbs would pay LESS under lvt you absolute mongoloid. land value per acre in suburbs is fraction of urban core. dense apartment building on expensive urban land pays more total but less per unit.

>landlord can cut rents
Yeah to the actual market rate instead of inflated monopoly rate. when you can't hoard vacant land/units for free, supply increases, prices fall. econ 101.

Imagine being this confident while not understanding the difference between land value and land area. ngmi.

>>509550551
asre you really argueing New York doesnt have enough skyscrapers?
kek

>>509550499
>Bodenrichtwert determines tax
>therefore we have very much a landvalue tax

Ok let me explain why you're wrong:

1. Bodenrichtwert is used to calculate total property value INCLUDING buildings. you don't tax just land value, you tax land + improvements
2. Your hebesatz (tax rate) is like 0.35% annually. singapore's lvt is 16%. that's 45x higher
3. you still tax labor at 42% and consumption at 19%. real georgism = ONLY land tax, nothing else
4. Even your new grundsteuer C for empty lots is just marginally higher rate, not equal to developed land

A "land value tax" that's 0.35% while crushing workers with 42% income tax isn't georgism, it's a joke. It's like saying you're vegetarian because you had sauerkraut with your bratwurst.

Again, show me where in Germany someone pays 10-20% annually on pure land value with zero income/sales/capital gains tax. That's Georgism.

>>509550730
Manhattan is 23 square miles. 8 square miles is parking lots and low-rise buildings. one third of the most valuable land on earth sitting empty or far underused. That's why a closet costs $3k/month.

>>509550551
>the family living there still pays less total than current system (no income/sales/payroll/capital gains/etc taxes remember?)
Any single tax sufficient to eliminate all those other taxes will be very high and equivalent to an existence tax.
>I said land beats stocks over long term in prime locations. pick any 30+ year period for manhattan or sf core or any major city. Also "annual tax on land" - yeah that goes to society instead of some trust fund faggot, that's the whole idea.
You haven't demonstrated that. Trustfund faggots can and will still own stocks.
>Then why are there still parking lots in downtown sf? because property tax punishes building (pay more tax) while rewarding speculation (pay almost nothing). lvt reverses this
San Francisco is the most nimbyfagged over-regulated places on the entire planet. Land tax policy has little to do with that.
>Exactly why suburbs would pay LESS under lvt you absolute mongoloid.
No it isn't, you have a fundamentally wrong understanding of value. A market value of land will reflect its rent extraction potential and speculative equity growth minus its ownership costs and opportunity costs for owning other assets. If land is taxed higher according to the market value of land, and housing is a good with inelastic demand, house owners will be taxed higher because apartment owners will be able to pay a higher land value tax.
>Yeah to the actual market rate instead of inflated monopoly rate.
Rent is already competitive and correlates strongly with local wages. A homeowner extracting zero rent from their home but suddenly facing jacked up land value taxes ends up fucked.
>when you can't hoard vacant land/units for free
No one is doing that, property is already taxed substantially and there are other costs like maintenance that eat massively into property ownership.

>>509550910
I think people prefer not having literally every building be a skyscraper
is this thread bait?

>>509550910
No, that's a consequence of America loving cars. Europe doesn't have LVT like you're describing, and they also have far less parking lot acreage relative to cities overall

>>509547135 (OP)
It's worth noting in this thread that George was a Christian and a prime part of his reasoning for taxation on land ownership and other land monopolization was his view that God creates land, not people.

A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow; but that also suggests a man should not be entitled to what is not the sweat of his brow. Land definitely falls into this category. A man can till the soil, but in a million years could never create soil out of thin air. Man can only find land, he can't create it, only God creates land. And therefore, why should a man say he has exclusive forever ownership of any bit of God's creation? All of God's creation was given to all of man and if you want to have exclusive dominion over some part of it, it's not unreasonable to suggest that you pay everyone else for the privilege, that you earn the right.

George made a moral argument simultaneously as making a practical argument. Destroying land speculation via taxation prevents wars and revolutions, but it's also just the right thing to do.

>Well what if I build something on it?
Sweat of your brow, and George's Land Value Tax deliberately doesn't take improvements like a building into account.

>>509551105
He's a fucking schizo. He's arguing on one hand that LVT = more skyscrapers, but also that LVT = more single home ownership.

>>509551158
maybe hes a bot
its weird how he claims to know about german land tax

>>509551127
>and George's Land Value Tax deliberately doesn't take improvements like a building into account.
It explicitly does. Per George
>It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses.
In George's view, the collective improvements of society represent the enrichment of all those who participate in said society. Therefore, as improvements upon the land cause said enrichment, taxes have to be increased in order to meet the increased value of land. Land value and improvement value are not mutually exclusive.
>>509551207
Every Georgist I've known argues exactly like him, they're a very niche group of religious zealots. Marxists and ancaps are less fervent in their ideology than Georgists.

>>509551057
>existence tax
LVT on median home = less than current property tax + income tax combined. alaska already pays ubi from resource rents. stop pretending math doesn't exist.

>trustfund faggots can still own stocks
Yeah but they can't extract rent from monopolizing land. That's literally half their income gone. you really don't understand how the rich stay rich do you. Pro-tip everyone can buy stocks retard.

>san francisco is the most nimbyfagged
Nimbyism only works because land speculation is profitable. Make holding land expensive and nimbys can't afford to block development. Cause and effect dummy.

>house owners will be taxed higher because apartment owners can pay more
Completely backwards. Apartments use land more efficiently = lower tax per unit. single family home on same value land = higher tax per household. This is basic math.

>rent is already competitive
"competitive" when blackrock owns entire neighborhoods? When 30% of purchases are cash investors? lmfao ok

>no one is hoarding vacant land
Manhattan has 250k empty apartments. sf has 40k vacant units. la has 100k. but sure nobody hoards.

>property is already taxed substantially
0.5-1% annually is "substantial"? Lmao. Did you forget we're talking land not buildings again? Is this too much for you to grasp? Awww. Singapore charges 16%. That's substantial. You're coping hard.

Every objection you make just proves you don't understand the basic mechanism. read george or stay poor

>>509547135 (OP)
I read a pamphlet of his awhile back. It is a cool idea. However it left me with some questions:

1. Who gets to determine the "land value" and how? Is it just at point of sale, or does some state entity get the privilege of telling everybody what their land is worth and then taking a percentage of that every X months?

2. Would this incentivize governments from abolishing all zoning laws (even the reasonable ones)? They already eminent domain people's houses and build sports stadiums and mini malls on the land because those places pay more in taxes. It seems like if the ONLY way they got paid was through land value, they'd pull out all the stops.

>>509551105
Such a person wouldn't live in Manhattan.
>>509551158
Both things are true. The LVT removes land speculation, meaning that hedge funds, billionaires and other big capitalists would have zero reason to buy and hold houses they won't actually use for anything like they do currently. They wouldn't even use them for rentals in most cases - landlords would still exist but mostly as apartment building owners. So less competition for home ownership, meaning less demand, meaning more reasonable prices, meaning more homeowners.

And LVT would give high-value places like Manhattan crushing taxes that would drive out any non-industrious use of the land, since you'd have to make a lot of money there in order to rationalize paying the tax every year.

>>509551303
>It explicitly does.
It explicitly doesn't and the quote doesn't say or imply that. Why bother passing yourself off as some experienced debater on the subject if you're just going to misrepresent the man?

>>509551105
Nobody said make everything skyscrapers retard. just stop letting speculators hold prime downtown land as parking lots. There's a middle ground between "Manhattan unlivably expensive for everyone who works there" and "blade runner dystopia". It's called normal development based on actual demand instead of speculation. But sure keep pretending people "prefer" paying $3k for a studio because some boomer won't sell his empty lot.

>>509551158
not contradicting myself, you just can't read. lvt = efficient land use based on actual demand.

downtown where land is valuable? yeah more density because speculation stops. suburbs where families want to live? more affordable houses because they're not competing with investors.

It's called market efficiency. expensive urban land gets developed, cheaper suburban land stays residential. right now we have the opposite - urban land sits empty while suburbs get bought up by Blackrock.

this isn't complicated unless you're deliberately being retarded.

>>509551207
>it's totally crazy that this guy who knows about taxes, knows about taxes!
Anon, everyone in the world who knows shit about anything knows Germany doesn't have a Georgist LVT system. You're just dumb, sorry to break it to you.

>>509551303
Aww wittle baby mad that he keeps getting his ass handed to him because he doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about awww you poor thing are you the king of /pol/? poor wittle baby

>>509551628
>everyone in the world who knows shit about anything knows Germany doesn't have a Georgist LVT system
and, Grundsteuer literally means land tax

>>509551723
And "democratic people's republic of korea" literally means democratic republic.

Names don't mean shit when you tax buildings + land and charge 0.35% while workers pay 42% income tax. I'm starting to think you're a simpleton, hans.

>>509551475
Point 1 is a strength of the LVT. Valuing land is something that every single county in America already does today with a standard method and generally agreed-upon answers. Sure you can complain that the government does it, but then we're edging into more anarchist viewpoints that are outside the realm of Georgism.

Point 2; not clear to me, but I don't think it would be accelerated any more than normal. If anything an LVT would probably reduce sprawl by eliminating land speculation which in turn makes tax bases more stable, reducing the motive to artificially slot in more tax profitable buildings.

>>509551363
>LVT on median home = less than current property tax + income tax combined.
Show me that math. I pay $5k/yr in property tax, $25k/yr in income tax ($30k/yr total). I'm in a position to retire if I want very soon in large part because most of my taxes are on income instead of wealth. If I pay $20k/yr in LVT with no other taxes, my entire calculus for retirement changes, because my retirement costs go up substantially. If I sell my property, I must now rent from a landlord who in turn is paying even higher taxes and passing those costs down to me.
>literally half their income gone
Serious doubt. Even Bill Gates only got on the land ownership train several years ago, most billionaires/multi-millionaires don't go big on land unless it's their primary business.
>Nimbyism only works because land speculation is profitable.
No, it works because of laws that stop the free market. Land is relatively cheap in most of the country, you're cherry picking Manhattan and SF as if they didn't explicitly enact NIMBYism in the form of zoning and boomer protectionism.
>"competitive" when blackrock owns entire neighborhoods?
Landlords don't exist in a monopoly, they have to compete with each other. A landlord who has rents 25% higher than the neighbor for the equivalent unit will not get as many buyers. Blackrock is the creation of infinite Jew money extracted from taxpayers in the form of bailouts/too big to fail/the Fed.
>Manhattan has 250k empty apartments. sf has 40k vacant units. la has 100k. but sure nobody hoards.
You're missing other numbers like what percent of total inventory those represent, how much of it is due to niggers making places unlivable, etc.
>0.5-1% annually is "substantial"?
For wealth, yes, it's huge. Only a poorfag schizo couldn't see that.
>Singapore charges 16%.
Singapore has public housing, a uniquely good geographic position, and lots of big finance money.

>>509551628
anon, Manhattan is full of tall buiildings
do you think there is a lot of single family homes there or somehting
and the parkign is obviously needed
how would you go there without parking
surely the whole thread is bait

>>509551540
>The LVT removes land speculation, meaning that hedge funds, billionaires and other big capitalists would have zero reason to buy and hold houses they won't actually use for anything like they do currently.
The value of empty land is trivial which is part of the reason to speculate on empty land; relatively minimal risk. Most actual land speculation is done on improved land from which rents can be extracted.
>And LVT would give high-value places like Manhattan crushing taxes that would drive out any non-industrious use of the land, since you'd have to make a lot of money there in order to rationalize paying the tax every year.
What non-industrious use of land is there? Are you suggesting there's a massive arbitrage gap that isn't being filled for some reason?
>It explicitly doesn't and the quote doesn't say or imply that.
"of that value which is the creation of the community" = improved land

>>509551628
>downtown where land is valuable? yeah more density because speculation stops. suburbs where families want to live? more affordable houses because they're not competing with investors.
>It's called market efficiency.
That's how it already works without the LVT retard.
>urban land sits empty while suburbs get bought up by Blackrock
Only the urban land vandalized by niggers. Most urban land is very dense compared to suburban land.

>>509551856
>Valuing land is something that every single county in America already does today with a standard method and generally agreed-upon answers.
lmao no it isn't. I live in Caliwali; here, land value is defined as 1/3 the sale price value, and then reassessed by +2% per year. In other states it can be totally different.

>>509551878
>my retirement costs go up
Boo fucking hoo. We don't need retired asshole hoarding prime real estate while families need those locations for schools and work. Under georgism you'd move somewhere appropriate for retirement and let productive people use productive locations. your house is only worth shit because of artificial scarcity anyway. Also you'd have saved way more with zero income tax your whole working life. now you're crying because you can't profit off monopoly? typical boomer mindset

>bill gates only got on land ownership recently
Over a decade ago but ok. Blackrock owns $60 billion in residential real estate. bezos, turner, malone all massive landowners. you think they're doing it for fun? Also a lot of rent is exotic (network effects, other special privileges like EM spectrum) but you're definitely too stupid to grasp that part so I won't go there.

>land is cheap in most of the country
"just live in bumfuck nowhere bro" we've been over this. jobs exist in cities where land monopoly extracts everything

>landlords compete
They "compete" like joining a game of monopoly after all the properties are bought. Can't make new manhattan, can't create new downtown sf. it's not competition when supply is fixed and they own it all

>0.5% is huge for wealth
Singapore's 16% doesn't stop them being richer than us. maybe because their workers keep their whole paycheck? malaysia right next door with same geography is poor as shit. really makes you think

keep coping about how paying half your income to parasites is good, actually

Interesting thread. I've been reading a little bit about Georgism lately.
There was an interesting thread a few day ago that argued that not only land but other finite resources should be taxed too, OP called them "choke points", since holding those allowed the creation of monopolies. What do you think? For example, how would enterprises that hold "virtual space" or "data monopolies" be taxed (stuff like social networks, g**gle etc)?

>>509552517
>Boo fucking hoo.
I'm invested in crypto and stocks, my only property is my home which I live in. How is the LVT supposed to replace the income tax in areas where land value is low?
>"just live in bumfuck nowhere bro" we've been over this. jobs exist in cities where land monopoly extracts everything
A better solution would be to ban the monopoly on certain kinds of employment. Why accept Californian companies hoarding IP? Why accept NY banks controlling international banking?
>They "compete" like joining a game of monopoly after all the properties are bought. Can't make new manhattan, can't create new downtown sf. it's not competition when supply is fixed and they own it all
Rents fluctuate and many landlords are small time. A new Manhattan could be easily created if the power of NY banks was crushed.
>Singapore's 16% doesn't stop them being richer than us. maybe because their workers keep their whole paycheck? malaysia right next door with same geography is poor as shit. really makes you think
Singapore is an Anglo-Chinese ex-colony with one of the largest ports in the world. You can't compare them to some random neighboring country with totally different demographics and economic behaviors.

German posters are the most retarted people on this board. They are only capable or repeating the propaganda their government feeds them. If you read a German flag saying something that requires some capability of individual thought, you can be sure that poster is not an ethnic Kraut.

>>509552100
>that's how it already works without lvt
yeah that's why sf has 40,000 vacant units and parking lots downtown while teachers live 2 hours away. very efficient market bro

>only urban land vandalized by niggers
ghettos exist BECAUSE of land speculation. slumlords buy up properties, extract maximum rent with zero maintenance, let them decay, wait for gentrification. lvt makes that impossible. you pay the same tax whether it's luxury condos or crack dens, so you either improve the property or sell to someone who will. no more profitable decay. Detroit didn't become a wasteland naturally. speculators bought everything, let it rot, waiting for revival. Under lvt they'd be forced to develop or sell immediately. Singapore has no ghettos. Not because they don't have nigs etc but because land speculation is impossible when you're paying 16% annually. can't hoard and wait.

>most urban land is very dense
have you been to any american city? houston is 50% parking. la is 14% parking just in downtown. phoenix is a parking lot with buildings. detroit has more abandoned lots than buildings

without lvt speculators can hold prime land hostage forever. with lvt they develop or sell. that's the entire fucking point but you're too dense to get it

blackrock buying suburbs isn't "market efficiency" it's what happens when productive investment is punished (income tax) while parasitic hoarding is rewarded (no land tax)

>>509552824
>ghettos exist BECAUSE of land speculation. slumlords buy up properties, extract maximum rent with zero maintenance, let them decay, wait for gentrification.
lmaooooooooo stopped reading here, go to reddit

>>509552517
Singapore has a property tax

>their workers keep their whole paycheck
?
thats not correct either
singapoor has an income tax

Im convinced the whole htread is bait

>>509552747
>my only property is my home
Prop 13 moment. you're literally the problem - paying 1978 tax rates while new buyers get fucked. "only my home" while you sit on appreciating land paying nothing. Peak boomer brain

>how does lvt replace income tax where land value is low
That's the point retard. low value land = low tax. high value land = high tax. rural areas barely pay anything, cities fund everything. no more subsidizing sprawl with income taxes from productive workers

>ban monopoly on employment
"just ban companies from existing in cities bro." yeah let's destroy the entire economy instead of fixing the land problem. Galaxy brain take from a prop 13 parasite.

>new manhattan could be created
Where? you gonna build it in the ocean? location is inherently scarce. that's why it's monopoly. you can't "create" another manhattan any more than you can create another earth

>singapore is different
Singapore was poorer than malaysia in 1965. now they're 5x richer. only difference? land policy. but keep coping about "demographics" while your state collapses under prop 13.

California is fucked specifically because of people like you voting to protect your unearned gains while young families flee the state. congrats on destroying the golden state for your portfolio.

>>509552960
Singapore has a property tax
you lying nigger

>>509552903
stay ignorant faggot idgaf

>>509552924
>>509552984
Ok retard here's the comparison for you fucking faggot

GERMANY:

Income tax: up to 45% (42% + 5.5% solidarity surcharge)
VAT: 19% standard rate How the remaining years of a property can affect its price
Social security (employee): 9.3% pension + 1.3% unemployment + 7.3% health + 1.7% care = 19.6%
Social security (employer): same 19.6% + work accident insurance
Property tax (Grundsteuer): ~0.35% annually
Church tax: 8-9% of income tax
Capital gains tax: 26.4%
Trade tax (Gewerbesteuer): 7-17% for businesses
Inheritance/gift tax: varies by amount

SINGAPORE:

Income tax: up to 22%
GST: 9%
Property tax: varies, based on rental value
Church tax: 0%
Capital gains tax: 0%
Estate duty: 0% (abolished 2008)
Payroll taxes: 0%

Happy?

>>509552731
>other finite resources should be taxed too
>OP called them "choke points"

Based take actually. George himself talked about this - he defined "land" as all natural opportunities, not just dirt. that includes electromagnetic spectrum, mineral rights, water rights, etc

>virtual space or data monopolies

network effects create artificial scarcity just like land monopoly. facebook/google don't create value from innovation anymore, they extract rent from controlling where people gather online. same parasitic dynamic

Singapore actually does this partially - they auction spectrum rights, fishing quotas, COEs (certificates to own cars). treats any scarce resource like land

For tech monopolies you could tax based on user base size or data harvested. past certain thresholds they're just digital landlords. or tax their ad revenue since that's literally selling access to scarce attention

the principle is the same: if you control something society needs but nobody created (land, spectrum, network effects), you pay society for that privilege. otherwise you get rentiers in every industry

George would probably support this extension. monopoly is monopoly whether it's land or data

>>509553555
>Property tax: varies, based on rental value
well you claimed the opposite the whole thread

>>509553848
Thanks for your answer. The more I read about Georgism, the more sense it makes.

>>509553900
>well you claimed the opposite the whole thread

I claimed Singapore captures land value, not that they have pure georgist single tax colony. They do it through:

- owning 90% of land and leasing it
- capturing 96% of value through lease sales
- taxing development uplift at 70%

That's way more land value capture than your 0.35% grundsteuer. Their system isn't pure LVT but it's the closest system anywhere in the world. As I said, they started poorer than Malaysia and rocketed past (similar location) as soon as they started taxing land value over productivity. Mud hut shithole to top two (possibly top 1) wealthiest country in the world overnight.

what we find is that what matters is how much productivity tax you replace with land taxes. The more you do, the more prosperity. might as well be a law of gravity. george would say "don't nationalize the land and lease it, just tax the rent" but in terms of land value capture its half a dozen of one six of the other -- same result, economically.

>>509554149
Cheers anon. If you want to learn more, this is a great resource, start at part 0 (the book review): https://gameofrent.com/

>>509554155
their property taxes captures rent value, which is the opposite of what you claimed the whole thread
will you ever stop lying
or are you really just a bot?

>>509554284
Thanks again, Anon.

>>509554636
holy shit you're dumb as fuck. I said Singapore does a version of this, "this" being georgism. I never said they implement it purely and strictly, neither does estonia. Singapore is the closest model we have. What % of an economy gets its tax base from rents rather than productivity is actually a sliding scale, you daft retard. You can capture essential zero land value and get all your taxes from productivity, or you can capture 100% from land value and not tax productivity at all (the latter being pure Georgism). and guess what we find? the closer you are to shifting your entire tax base to land and zero on productivity, the wealthier and more prosperous you get. that clear enough for you midwit?

https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/singapore-economic-prosperity-through

this whole thread you've been arguing that germany taxes land like singapore. you're a fucking clown.

>>509554972
theyre not doing a version you lying nigger
they are taxing rent value not land value

alright I'm going to sleep. just remember

Georgism = tax land not labor, you keep everything you actually earn. every financial crisis is a land bubble. every housing crisis is artificial scarcity. The boom/bust cycle is a land value cycle (land gets a net present value, banks capitalize it into loans, this forms a bubble, this bubble underlies the whole economy). your rent is high because parasites hoard land and they hoard because the holding costs are lower than the value accrued.

Also Marx failed everywhere tried denial is cope. George's ideas work everywhere tried (singapore, estonia, parts of PA etc). tankies would rather larp about revolution than implement something that actually works.

blackrock owns your future because you let them. boomers fucked you because you let them. you pay 50%+ of income to various taxes while rent seekers laugh

the end good night

ps this nigger >>509555107 is dumber than rocks

>>509555191
singapoor is just a low tax city it has nothing to do with anything you said in this thread
neither has probably any of your other horseshit

Bamp

>>509547135 (OP)
Henry George did a good job fighting against rent-seeking parasites.

The idea that economic rent-seeking is bad was already a well known part of economics. Adam Smith wrote about unearned rents being bad.

Henry J. Simmons also understood and wrote about these issues. Kikes had to quickly seize control and derail the "Chicago School" of economics. This derailment led to the jewish (((libertarian))) economics, which has a deliberately designed blindspot on rent-seeking.

Clifford Hugh Douglas also had interesting ideas on economics.

Michael Hudson is one of the only living economists that understands this stuff. Hudson's inability to see the jews as the nucleus of the modern economic problem causes him to suggest solutions that won't succeed. But, all of his books are worth reading (newer books have the most refined ideas).

>>509547327
There's absolutely no reason why we cannot have a fair low tax system with a robust welfare state. These aren't mutually exclusive.

Land value tax is one of the most effective ways to tax the rich because it would tax the shit out all of all of the oligarch's luxury properties at very high rates.

It would also solve the housing crisis because it would incentive density. The larger the land plot in the urban center, the more valuable the property, so missing middle housing would explode with growth because developers would get a tax break to build them.

It would actually lower rents because under the current system, landlords can sit on vacancies with high rents because they know that a rich tenant will eventually show up who can afford it. But if the tax the land, it'll create a race to the bottom because then they'll be taxed with no income from rent to pay off the high tax, so they'll be forced to lower the rents in order to insure that they don't have any vacancies.

The citizens' dividend would be extra money redistributed from the rich straight into the working class's pockets that could also be redirected as extra funding to public services.

Land value tax is absolutely consistent with social democracy.

>>509547135 (OP)
/pol/ isn't ready for Georgism