You can assess taxes on site value. The land under the Empire State Building would be taxed approximately the same as the parking lot next door (figuratively speaking). In effect you tax each parcel as if it were empty and ripe for unspecified commercial exploitation.
The nice thing about a land tax is the tax base can't run away. There is no incentive effect. You pay the same whether you build on it or not. With a zero tax on 'improvements,' your incentive is to find the most profitable use for the land. (Chances are you could get away with a non-zero tax and still reap the benefits of the land tax.)
The problem with Georgism is the land tax base is insufficient to finance a splendid progressive welfare state. I would recommend it to cities. It would promote density in urban cores & less sprawl.
Why doesn't the left pick it up? Because the left thinks you can finance everything by taxing corporations. You can't.
georgistically yrs, mbs
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of Keith Nybakke Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:17 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Georgism on the left
How come so few left-of-center folks are Georgists?
That's easy.
Let's see... The land under the Empire State Building should be taxed at the same rate as the land under the parking lot next to it? Come on. That doesn't make any sense. <g>
Georgist taxation schemes are counter-intuitive to people who want to tax income and wealth and transactions.
How exactly does a land tax or license tax work?
Please compare it to sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, etc.
I know that comparisons on a theoretical and philosophical basis are abundant, but comparisons on a practical level are almost non-existent. It's this practical explanation that is needed, IMHO, if Georgist taxation is to become adopted as a left-of-center key concept.
If Georgists think a land and/or license tax should used, then it needs to be explained to a larger population in ways that are comparable to current taxation schemes -- and the practical benefits must be made obvious and the resulting changes must be made plain.
Regards, Keith