‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Does Georgism work? Five years later

514 points · 522 comments · silveraxe93

  1. skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
    I think LVT does have a history in US, e.g Pittsburgh.

    Also Georgism is 100% LVT -> A land tax alone has been the recommendation of many economists before and after George - From Smith, Riccardo, Mill to Friedman. Across classical, neoclassical, Keynesian, Austrian schools. If there's one thing economists can agree on, it's that land tax is better than income tax.

    1. jdjdndndbd · · focus · HN ↗
      Random thought, would be it be good to extend land tax to use of all common public goods. E.g. radio frequencies, mining, water, CO2 pollution. Things you own, licensed or consume that take from the common good. Obviously this need constant tweaking E.g. as new tech makes different things valuable.
      1. skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
        Yes, it's been suggested that all scarce inputs to the economy should be taxed. And yes the idea of Georgism is to let market set the prices and tax based off of that.

        It does become complicated when the scarce inputs are things like highly specialized labor. Georgism wouldn't tax that monopoly, though our current systems (progressive income taxes) do. Many people would want a system which penalizes businesses for buying up e.g. all the veterinarians in a city and charging monopoly prices.

        1. Buttons840 · · focus · HN ↗
          Monopoly busting doesn't need to be solved by the tax system, right? Isn't that a separate issue?

          Although, maintaining a monopoly by owning land becomes more difficult with a LVT. It theoretically becomes easier for a new vet to find a place and setup shop in the city, and then the Monopoly is busted.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.