3 ms·

The Georgist argument that land rents are unjust doesn't justify a land tax now. Under his logic, the ones who unjustly benefited were the ones who unfairly cla

The Georgist argument that land rents are unjust doesn't justify a land tax now. Under his logic, the ones who unjustly benefited were the ones who unfairly claimed the land in the first place. Since then most land has been traded several times, but at the market value, meaning the 'profit' remained with the original holder. So it would be unjust to now implement a land tax. The value of the land would fall by the discounted sum of future tax, so the entire cost would be borne by the current land owners. They're no more deserving of tax than equally wealthy people who invested in something other than land. A better argument is that the tax would encourage the owners to make good use of the land. If the government wants to implement a land tax to do that then they should first compensate the current owners. (In some cases we can still identify the ones unjustly benefiting. The US definitely should be charging Nestlé for the water they pump out of the water table.)

pydry 4y ago
Under your argument 14th century land in Manhattan is worth the same as 21st century land. Land values are just capitalized land rents. Land in Manhattan is valuable today because the stream of income or potential stream of income that flows from it today. When that potential is lost, land values collapse. The entirety of that value in Manhattan derives from what is around it - the people who live there. The rents are close to 100% parasitic. Let's say a nearly identical apartment costs $700 in a cheap town and and $3,700 in manhattan. That means roughly $3000 / month of that rent is parasitically extracted. In the past you used to be able to purchase the right to tax people - and whatever you could wring out of them you could keep. These people were not very popular. Land ownership is not so very different.

pydry 4y ago

Under your argument 14th century land in Manhattan is worth the same as 21st century land. Land values are just capitalized land rents. Land in Manhattan is valuable today because the stream of income or potential stream of income that flows from it today. When that potential is lost, land values collapse. The entirety of that value in Manhattan derives from what is around it - the people who live there. The rents are close to 100% parasitic. Let's say a nearly identical apartment costs $700 in a cheap town and and $3,700 in manhattan. That means roughly $3000 / month of that rent is parasitically extracted. In the past you used to be able to purchase the right to tax people - and whatever you could wring out of them you could keep. These people were not very popular. Land ownership is not so very different.