For those unfamiliar with Georgism and LVT (land value tax):
Georgism, also called in modern times Geoism,[2][3] and known historically as the single tax movement, is an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society.[4][5][6] Developed from the writings of American economist and social reformer Henry George, the Georgist paradigm seeks solutions to social and ecological problems, based on principles of land rights and public finance which attempt to integrate economic efficiency with social justice.[7][8]
Georgism is concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by land ownership, natural monopolies, pollution rights, and control of the commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g., intellectual property). Any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of land monopoly involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair, and equitable. The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value, arguing that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes (such as on income, trade, or purchases) that are unfair and inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue to the people by means of a basic income or citizen’s dividend.
And although LVT is the most central proposed policy of Georgism, Georgists also advocate for carbon taxes (and other taxes on negative externalities), severance taxes on finite natural resources like oil or minerals, intellectual property (IP) reform, and eliminating barriers to entry. (It should be noted that Georgists want to replace bad/inefficient taxes like sales, income, and property taxes with LVT, externality (aka Pigouvian), and severance taxes.)
As for why LVT? In short, it’s just a really good tax. Progressive, widely regarded by economists as “the perfect tax”, incentivizes efficient use of land, discourages speculation and rent-seeking, economically efficient, and hard to evade. Plus, critically regarding landlords, land value taxes can’t be passed on to tenants, both in economic theory and in observed practice.
In fact, it’s so well-regarded a tax that it’s been referred to as the “perfect tax”, and is supported by economists of all ideological stripes, from free-market libertarians like Milton Friedman — who famously described it as the “least bad tax” — to social democrats and Keynesians like Joseph Stiglitz. It’s simply a really good policy that I don’t think is talked about nearly enough.
Even a quite milquetoast land value tax, such as in the Australian Capital Territory, has been shown to reduce speculation and improve affordability:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
More resources:
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s physically impossible to be ‘unreasonably’ angry at parking lots! Reclaim your city’s land, people. You’re all paying for it
This is how I wanna reclaim that land:
Either that or a buttload of housing
Meadows, parks, housing, literally anything besides an asphalt desert
Imagine a grocery store surrounded by a garden full of fresh fruits and vegetables instead of pavement
And stone gardens. I hate those
Sure, modulo you don’t want those meadows where parking lots are now.
A stadium surrounded by meadows is a terrible idea. You want a stadium surrounded by apartments, a subway stop, restaurants, shopping, etc. You want people to reasonably get to the stadium on foot or on bike, using the subway to commute from other parts of the city.
Then, sure, have some prairies around your city as a park with all the space saved by replacing car-centric suburban and exurban sprawl with streetcar suburbs and walkable mixed use urbanism. Or surround it with forest, u-pick apple orchards, or whatever.
Eooo, clean sweep
- except the helmet thing wear your fucking helmets you vain bastards
Ah, but I was scared for my life with or without a helmet when sharing with cars. Now I still am, but they’re also scared for me. A couple guys I met told me so. They recognized me at a store and told me “it’s dangerous to not wear a helmet. I had to follow you from further out”. I realized then that wearing a helmet could encourage not just myself, but others, to do dumbass shit.
I guess it depends on your community. I live in a small exurb that’s got solid rural roots. There’s like 3 big streets and 2 of them have the same name.
But yeah I wear a helmet in winter cuz ice n’shit. I’m dumb, not stupid
Oh I’m still wary af wearing a helmet. The purpose of the helmet isn’t to make you glibly fearless as a rider.
it’s to stop a simple accident becoming a life-altering injury. Plain and simple.
No, never.
Source: grew up in the Netherlands
the only valid excuse. God damn I wish we had your infrastructure. Or at least drivers who aren’t homicidal dickheads towards anything that isn’t a v8
Yeah seriously. I’m not supportive of mandatory helmet laws because stats say people ride less with it, to the point that it actually has negative overall health benefits.
But the fact is that from an individual decision standpoint, helmets work really well. And they work especially well in the kinda of incidents that you’re still likely to get into even with good infrastructure. Lower speed crashes between two cyclists, a wheel sliding out from under you, etc.
So from an individual standpoint, you’re a ducjing idiot if you get on a bike without a helmet in anything other than the most extreme of circumstances (like riding a share bike where you didn’t expect to be riding one and no helmet is available).
yeah those stats always strike me as hinky. Mind you, lies, damned lies and statistics.
If someone’s going to be put off cycling by a helmet …then they’re gonna use any other excuse they can think of to not ride because the answer is not that they don’t like wearing helmets, the reason is they don’t want to ride and like the excuse. And it always gets pulled out as “see? more people would ride if you didn’t make them wear helmets!!” over much higher % reasons like “Roads are populated with maddened arseholes” or “there’s zero amenities that make this a practical regular mode of transport”
The only reason I wear a helmet is so the defence can’t use it as an excuse when I’m run over.
You can’t make me
Pancake skull compels you
What if I’m here because I think most people are too stupid and distracted to drive and want them to have more and better options and far more stringent licensing so they’re out of my way when I’m driving?
Also, I’m an urbanist who wants cities to suck less so we leave rural land alone so I can go out there and be alone.
Well, you would have the “hating suburban sprawl that encroaches endlessly into rural/remote areas” in common with the two bottom panels. But maybe the 5th horseman is people who want dumb and awful drivers off the road?
want them to have more and better options
So, the public transit enjoyer?
Personally, I favor a LVT for financing free public transit…
Personally, I favor a LVT for financing free public transit…
Hell yeah, I wrote a post on reddit about this very topic a while back. I’ll copy it below:
In 1977, Joseph Stiglitz showed that under certain conditions, beneficial investments in public goods will increase aggregate land rents by at least as much as the investments’ cost.[1] This proposition was dubbed the “Henry George theorem”, as it characterizes a situation where Henry George’s ‘single tax’ on land values, is not only efficient, it is also the only tax necessary to finance public expenditures.[2] Henry George had famously advocated for the replacement of all other taxes with a land value tax, arguing that as the location value of land was improved by public works, its economic rent was the most logical source of public revenue.[3] The often cited passage is titled “The unbound Savannah.”
…
Subsequent studies generalized the principle and found that the theorem holds even after relaxing assumptions.[4] Studies indicate that even existing land prices, which are depressed due to the existing burden of taxation on labor and investment, are great enough to replace taxes at all levels of government.[5][6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
Essentially, the idea is that building things like metro lines and light rail increases neighboring land values. Instead of letting those increased land values be captured by private landholders, we can capture it with a hefty land value tax (which is a terrific tax for a whole host of reasons, particularly for urbanists). And as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have shown, a strong enough LVT is capable of funding that public transit entirely. I.e., no fares, no ticketing, just transit paying for itself via its own increase in nearby land values.
It gets even better when you consider that ticketing and fare collection incurs not-insignificant costs for transit systems. It means more labor, more enforcement, and more construction costs. For example, new underground metro lines are very expensive in large part because tunneling is expensive. If you can dig less by not having to build large rooms for ticketing and turnstiles, you can save money on metro construction. Plus, free transit is great for increasing ridership, and it’s doubly great for low-income folks.
Further, LVT heavily disincentivizes parking lots and low-density development on valuable land, so you’d heavily discourage park-and-rides and heavily encourage transit-oriented development.
Oh, interesting, so it has been widely communicated common-sense for half a century already.
I wonder why all governments seem to ignore those well-known economic ideas that have no downside except for not insanely benefiting the ultra-rich. (In fact, they seem to ignore all of those.)
I wonder why all governments seem to ignore those well-known economic ideas that have no downside except for not insanely benefiting the ultra-rich. (In fact, they seem to ignore all of those.)
I think about this a lot, too. So many of our current problems we know excellent solutions for. After all, millions and millions of experts around the world have studied these problems and have proposed (and often converged upon) solutions. And yet actually implementing them politically is such an uphill battle.
why all governments seem to ignore those well-known economic ideas that have no downside except for not insanely benefiting the ultra-rich
You answered your own question: They don’t insanely benefit the ultra-rich.
If we don’t give the ultra-rich all the money, the economy will suffer, and the only thing everyone in power can agree on is that we need to protect the status quo of the economy at all costs.
I actually hate public transit for the same reason I don’t like cities and suburbs: There’s people there.
Given the choice between public transit and walking I’d take the latter, every time. If I could walk across water I’d do that rather than fly.
I’m here because I think most people are too stupid to drive
Unironically, average and middle-class car-think.
A couple weeks ago I pulled up next to a very old man driving his very old wife with an oxygen tube in his nose.
Both of them need better options.
No, there was this study that smth like a supermajority of car drivers think that everyone else is ‘too stupid’ at driving, thus this opinion kinda is a logical fallacy.
Ability politics will not save private cars, nor will tradespeople save take-home vehicles, but yes, both of them need better options.
I’ve seen that study and it’s part of why I think most people are too stupid to drive. They have such a lack of awareness of what “good driving” means they shouldn’t be driving in the first place.
Plus with more stringent licensing requirements drivers will be better. For example, in Finland they basically have to learn how to race cars. They spend hours on a skid pad so they know what to do when their car slides. They practice avoiding moose at speed. They’re such better drivers they’re over-represented in a lot of motorsports.
YIMBY = Yes, In My Back Yard?
Yup, exactly
Which one are you?
Yes.
I’m Mr Walksalot.
Going for a meal 4 miles away.
Sets off an hour early.
See you there, fuckers.
gets unreasonably angry at parking lots
Literally cackling
Maybe, perhaps, someday, I can be all of the above.
At once.
I’m basically all of these lmao
And then there are YIMBYs with a bike in a train
Top two (but with a helmet)
Yimby here and my partner is so done with my shit some days
It is an unreasonably good feeling to be taking my morning dump on a train whooshing past the morning traffic jam.
100% a public transit enjoyer. I get annoyed with people in my city who complain endlessly about how shitty our bus service is. I’ve been getting the bus daily since childhood, and it used to be so much worse. 15 minute minimum wait, often it just wouldn’t show up, and expensive fares. Now it’s uncommon for me to wait for more than 5 minutes, the fares have reduced, and it’s reliable. The only issue is that the bus gets stuck in traffic because there are twice as many cars on the roads now compared to 25 years ago. So great job drivers, you’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Most of it comes from people who have next to no experience of using public transit, and will just latch onto any excuse not to use it, when in reality they’re snobs who don’t like to admit that they think getting the bus is below them. It’s not. I used to get the bus into college with one of my lecturers (RIP) who owned a fucking law firm, and it keeps people humble in my experience. I honestly think society would be healthier if people used public transit more.
I would be all of the above if I could afford one of those fancy, low down bikes with the pedals out front.
I also really like zeppelins and blimps and wish we lived in a sci-fi alternate universe where we had those instead of planes. Or along side planes at very least.
fancy, low down bikes with the pedals out front.
A recumbent?
Yes that! I can’t ride a regular bicycle.
Oh neat! I never thought about them in terms of accessibility. They’re famous for being a hell of a lot faster than regular bikes because of how much more aerodynamic they are. But if they’re also a way to allow more people to ride who otherwise couldn’t, that’s even better!
![[meme] Which one are you?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/55da052f-9d3f-42e4-ac75-2df89bbc2b92.webp){kind=link}