Very interesting. Do you have any sources to share so I can read into that?

Also, I believe there are 2x publicly known sources for LVT being applied on a wide scale: Alaska and Singapore. Both are very successful and comfortably perform far above average compared to other US states / other countries. This somewhat directly contradicts your statements. So maybe your experience is not representative for LVT’s performance, but rather your specific execution of it.

Just to be clear, LVT is just one form of resource tax. Actually all resource use including pollution and oil extraction etc. fall under my understanding of georgism.

Your comment doesn’t have any value.

let me use it for capitalism:

Capitalism is an ideology.

They think the market will solve all problems ever.

He’s basically like Marx, but instead of charging for the use of something, he thinks taxing work and output will solve all society’s problems. Like communists, Capitalists think if you just understand economy and BELIEVE poverty will disappear.

Capitalism has a lot of merits, but it has lots of drawbacks. It’s difficult to punish someone for working, for one. It would also be highly inaccurate in the case of different amount of use of resources.

Finally a fellow georgist. How does one work to promote LVT? You mean you got paid to do it and despite that, you are now against georgism?

IMHO, your reasoning is weird and blown out of proportion. Measuring value of land and housing is easy and is done today for the market, for insurance and for taxing purposes. This could be a reason for georgism to become unpopular, but it isn’t a reason against georgism.

in our case added 0 value to our property and in fact removed value

The common reasoning with negative value land. This is only brought up because it is an issue in todays world. It wouldn’t even be an issue with an LVT. If a strip of land is only costing money, just give it back to the Gov so they need to take care for it, you’re not a charity. Otherwise it has a measurable value which you are denying to win an argument.

It introduces just as many problems as it those it claims to solve.

No it doesn’t. I see one “Problem” LVT doesn’t solve, but you haven’t mentioned this one yet.

It makes sense in some limited contexts, like say, urban land use across small and regular parcels, but not all land is urban land. You forget that George was writing when society 70% agricultural and rural and working off a model of undeveloped land.

This is not valid. George focused on New York. It did include everything from agriculture to fully developed Manhattan. It’s called Land Value Tax, not Land Tax.

I feel you and I’m glad you asked. The goal of my comment is to invoke interest so one can go down the rabbithole on ones own terms. This has a much more sustainable effect than just serving information on a boilerplate nobody asked for. Much like a catchy title/thumbnail on a yt video generates clicks, but the actual information does not.

There are a lot of resources about LVT out there including some educational videos in an entertainning way. Pick your own poison: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=georgism

My Standpoint: Our present tax system is bad (almost worldwide): Tax based on value generated (like income, sales and import taxes) costs society a lot (real costs but also opportunity costs) while simultaniously not solving a lot of todays issues (f.e. tax evasion, old money, zone planning / car centric design, pollution, etc.). Land Value Tax (or more precicely: Resource Tax) solves this by getting rid of the penalty for being productive or creating value while simultaniously taxing those being exponantionally wasteful with resources and/or pollute.

With LVT, there is now a penalty free incentive to increase profits and/or efficiency. On the other hand, if you consume and/or occupy resources like land, oil or air pollution, you’ll have to pay tax for that derived from the resources scarcity. The sum of the tax would be similar or higher than todays sum and would finance all government spending including a citizens dividend which could be interpreted today as unconditional basic income which would provide for basic human needs.

Georgism is PRO Economy and PRO Humanity. Win Win. Regardless of your political flavor, you should be in favor 😏

Winners: Society, everyone from poor to rich, resourceful entrepreneurs

Losers: old money, polluters, unrighteous beneficiaries of today’s flawed legal situation

I’m german speaking. So for me, this is one word ;)

One word: Land value tax.

Every time I see a post like this I am disappointed that NO ONE mentions Henry George.

People, please, go educate yourself. Taxes were solved before ww1.