Georgism is not a form of capitalism. Georgism is a strategy for government revenue. Regardless of what type of economy you have, unless you have pure anarchy there needs to be a source of income for the government. Georgism is the least bad option, they’re all bad.
I usually fall somewhere in the range of what people call socialism. I’m certainly not a capitalist.
My main concern is Friedrich Hayek’s concern that valuations wouldn’t be fair. Where there’s an opportunity to game the system, those with means will. But maybe it’s better than our current system.
I would like to see working examples first, if possible.
Where there’s an opportunity to game the system, those with means will.
Absolutely. It’s one of my few gripes with georgism. And at the end of the day a shitty implementation of georgism is better than our current shit show of billionaires and mega corps paying $0 or next to $0 in taxes. Sometimes they even get paid instead.
But anyways, I haven’t seen much detail about how to fairly valuate land, but I’ve had some thoughts on it. The number one thing should be that all land is taxed at the same percentage, but each plot is valued differently. I think one of the ways to do this would be to simply calculate how far a given plot is from the nearest city center, and factor in how big the population of that city is.
It’s something that can be objectively measured, should be roughly correlated with what we could subjectively agree on is valuable, and isn’t something that could be gamed easily.
I would like to see working examples first, if possible.
The Netherlands has a land value tax, though it is not the sole income source for their government.
My understanding is that the government employs people to assign a value to each plot, and from there the use case of the land is considered. Land owners can then appeal the judgement if they like. I know there are some other countries besides the Netherlands that have a LVT system, but the Netherlands is the first that comes to mind. I’d honestly be ok with either of these systems of determining land value, either the one I made up or the Netherland’s. At the end of the day it’s pretty much the only way to tax the rich without them just moving their money elsewhere. You can’t move land after all, and much of their wealth is tied up in land.
Here is a research paper into the effects that might interest you.
I generally think the Netherlands makes sensible decisions (e.g. routing traffic around Amsterdam instead of through it, investing in rail and cycling infrastructure, not having a tipping culture for restaurants, etc), so it’s expected that they would have a decent solution here too.
I wish the US would take a page from their book and focus on moving people instead of cars, because pretty much everything else follows from that.
Yeah, it just makes perfect sense in an urban environment. If they want the “traditional” American car-centric lifestyle, then they can live further from city centers and commute in.
I’m lucky enough to live in a place that is a little bit walkable (7 eleven, pizza shop, beer store 2 min walking with a grocer 15 walk), there is so much more that could be done. I wish I didn’t have to get a car, and I am so close to basically ditching mine for an e-bike. The only thing stopping me is that my city’s bike safety is not the best.
Mine is pretty close as well, but I need a better way to get to work to ditch one of my cars (will always keep the other for family trips). My preferred option is extending the light rail system along tracks that already go near my house and are largely unused (only used periodically so stash unused cars/engines). Without that, my commute is ~2 hours by transit, and it would be about half if the line existed. Driving is a little over 30 min by car, for reference.
I could switch jobs and then cycle to work, and there are a lot of opportunities along a really nice bike path, I would just need to actually switch jobs.
And I live in the middle of suburbia, I’m sure other people need much less. Yet my area doesn’t prioritize transit, and instead we keep widening highways, which isn’t a long-term solution.
Whoa now, let’s not be unreasonable. They can be taxed at a geometric rate, starting at 100% the value of the house and doubling for every one thereafter.
Property taxes do generally work this way. Maybe they should increase property taxes 2-3x, but also raise the homestead exemption so that owning and living in the home is no more expensive.
yeah I wasn’t being serious any actual solution is going to need to be more nuanced than that. Probably involving state provided housing and likely involving high density accomodation. Although it’s a real shame that high density accomodation is archtecturally associated with shoddily built housing intended for people the government doesn’t give a fuck about because palaces and castles are also examples of high density accomodation.
I think the ideal solution would look like high density state provided housing that is designed to be beautiful and pleasant to live in.
No seconds until everyone has a plate. We all learned it as kids. Now let's do that with housing.
Fuck their capital. They don't deserve it. Take the empty houses and give them outright to those that need them. There are more empty homes in the US than unhoused people.
Those empty houses are largely in places where people do not want to live. If you look at markets where people actually live, it's a pretty different picture. A shack in the middle of the field in Nebraska does not help a homeless man in Manhattan (and he almost certainly wouldn't take it if you offered it for free).
The state should stop enforcing the legal rights of landlords to own property and exclude people from its use through physical force, and should organize the people enough that they can defend themselves from retaliation to this change.
This is just tinkering around the edges. We need land value taxes. This is a guaranteed way to solve these massive housing crises occurring in so many Western nations. LVT ensures expensive land is utilised better. Either by highly productive businesses, or higher density dwellings. Either way, society makes more efficient use of the land, and prices are constrained. It's an excellent way to ensure land banking is disincentivised, and that rentals don't stay vacant. Even Adam Smith was in favour of an LVT. Economists are almost unanimous on its efficacy. The only reason we don't widely deploy them is because it will hurt house prices and voters don't like that.
A LVT/georgism system would instantly kill the profit margins of all landlords around the country, so they will do everything in their power to prevent it from happening. All the more reason to do it.
Though I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, why not require rent payments be rewarded with a proportion of equity shares equal to rent (less a small prercatage for upkeep)? That's entirely within the capitalist model but drives value into the hands of the people/occupants where it belongs. Aggregating land holding to a small class of the population is clearly untenable. Give people their equity back. Seems more direct.
I don’t know about this, but the non occupant owners should have to pay obscene property taxes and then reduce the rates for owner-occupants to a reasonable level.
If buying a house isn't right for you - and for many renting should be the better option - then you will be forced to pay a lot more so the landlord can recover not only the cost of the building, but also that much higher taxes. In effect you are pushing people who really shouldn't buy a house to buy one anyway.
Landlords do have to pay an income tax on property regardless of whether it is occupied or not, it is just that when a property is not being rented, it generates 0 income and 30% of $0 is $0.
Landlord should always have a few not rented places so that when someone is ready to move there is a place they can go. They also should be doing major remodels and upgrades approximately every 30 years which means a long stretch of not occupied.
hostels and inns serve a different niche - temporary housing is important, but they don't give nearly as much space. If you want to live someplace for a year or more then you want more space for your stuff (how much is personal)
The coat of paint should be done every 5 years, or when a tenant moves out.
Major I mean things like replace the HVAC system, rewire to add GFCIs, replace windows with something better. If it doesn't cost $20,000 it isn't major. Most landlords do not do this, but it really should be part of the cost of doing business.
gothamist.com
Active