When I saw "obscure," it's because it appears to me that there's so much going for it, and yet very little is said among "the left" about it.
Georgist boosters mention PA quite a bit. E.g. Pittsburgh. (And that the ratio of tax on land to tax on structures is relatively high.) Then again, apparently Pittsburgh changed things for the worse a few years ago.
> 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.)
This is what I really like about it; it's like "land reform" coupled with the best aspects of "the free market." And it seems incredibly progressive, too. (Of course, small landowners who aren't necessarily wealthy would lose on their own homesteads, but they'd gain from all sorts of Ricardian rent elsewhere in the economy, e.g. on commercial sites, going to the government instead.)
> 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.
I agree with both points. Some Georgists claim that the fraction of rents is about 5-30% of GDP. Based on my own situation, I'm quite willing to believe the 5%. I don't really buy the 30%, though.
> Why doesn't the left pick it up? Because the left
> thinks you can finance everything by taxing corporations.
> You can't.
Right...somehow the bit about tax incidence is missing...
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk