2 ms·

> It just reeks of privileged guy in tech that lives in a major metropolitan region of the US that hasn’t really experienced much of the world outside that nich

> It just reeks of privileged guy in tech that lives in a major metropolitan region of the US that hasn’t really experienced much of the world outside that niche. Even a "privileged guy in tech that lives in a major metropolitan region of the US" would be feeling the brunt of a growing population in his wallet. More people = more demand for land = higher land prices = higher housing costs. Even in my somewhat-minor metropolitan region of the US am I feeling it. There are of course approaches to solve that issue (cough cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax cough cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism cough cough), but the exact sort of person who'd benefit from population growth under the socioeconomic status quo is also in all likelihood someone with a vested material interest in opposing said approaches - that is: someone who owns land and seeks to profit from said ownership, be it by renting it to others or by speculating on its future sale price.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Georgism isnt a viable solution for the modern world where a majority of the economy is services or knowledge work. 100% of the tax falls on use of physical goods, while 0% falls on consumption of labor. Of course this sounds attractive for tech workers who would live nearly tax free under such a system, requiring few physical goods and selling none.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > Georgism isnt a viable solution for the modern world where a majority of the economy is services or knowledge work. You need land for datacenters and offices. There is zero economic activity that doesn't use land in at least some capacity. That's indeed the very basis of Georgism's viability, including in the present day. And even if there was some tech company that used zero land whatsoever, there are plenty of other things with inelastic supply that would confer the same benefits if taxed by value; IP addresses and domain names both come to mind. > 100% of the tax falls on use of physical goods Correction: 100% of the tax falls on landowners, while 0% falls on everyone else. > Of course this sounds attractive for tech workers It should sound attractive to literally everyone whose wealth derives primarily or entirely from their own labor. > who would live nearly tax free under such a system That depends on their living arrangements. If they're renting, then yes, it'd be entirely tax free, as it would be for every other renter. If they own their own homes, then it depends on location; given equal physical characteristics, a plot of land in Downtown is more valuable than a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, and so would be the tax on that value.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Saw this very late, but here are my thoughts. >Correction: 100% of the tax falls on landowners, while 0% falls on everyone else. The way you approach this seems to assume that any Georgist taxes get passed on to corporations & owners, but not individuals. A data center would bear the cost of taxes for land and construction materials based on their availability and demand even if the land and building were rented. Similarly, taxes of land, water, fertilizer, metals, would be passed on to the consumer. At the end of the day, Georgism boils down to a material use and consumption tax. Because there is no Georgist tax for capital gains or income, A janitor would pay the same tax as a CEO if they personally use and consume the same amount of raw materials. A stock trader making 1B/year pays the same as a carpenter, maybe less because the carpenter need more physical materials to work like wood & nails, while the stock trader just sends a few megabytes down the wires. Much of what humans exchange for value does not have a strong relation to scarce physical materials, primarily labor and money. The incomes of Apple or Google are not proportional to their material use, just like the the incomes of hyper billionaires is not proportional to their cheeseburger consumption. ( e.g. Musk's income is maybe that of 500,000 Americans, but he doesn't use as much land, eat as much food, or use as much fuel as 500,000 people). This is why a georgist tax regime is very regressive (which isnt inherently a bad thing). I just dont think it is a great social equalizer many proponents claim.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Georgism isnt a viable solution for the modern world where a majority of the economy is services or knowledge work. 100% of the tax falls on use of physical goods, while 0% falls on consumption of labor. Of course this sounds attractive for tech workers who would live nearly tax free under such a system, requiring few physical goods and selling none.

yellowapple 3y ago
> Georgism isnt a viable solution for the modern world where a majority of the economy is services or knowledge work. You need land for datacenters and offices. There is zero economic activity that doesn't use land in at least some capacity. That's indeed the very basis of Georgism's viability, including in the present day. And even if there was some tech company that used zero land whatsoever, there are plenty of other things with inelastic supply that would confer the same benefits if taxed by value; IP addresses and domain names both come to mind. > 100% of the tax falls on use of physical goods Correction: 100% of the tax falls on landowners, while 0% falls on everyone else. > Of course this sounds attractive for tech workers It should sound attractive to literally everyone whose wealth derives primarily or entirely from their own labor. > who would live nearly tax free under such a system That depends on their living arrangements. If they're renting, then yes, it'd be entirely tax free, as it would be for every other renter. If they own their own homes, then it depends on location; given equal physical characteristics, a plot of land in Downtown is more valuable than a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, and so would be the tax on that value.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Saw this very late, but here are my thoughts. >Correction: 100% of the tax falls on landowners, while 0% falls on everyone else. The way you approach this seems to assume that any Georgist taxes get passed on to corporations & owners, but not individuals. A data center would bear the cost of taxes for land and construction materials based on their availability and demand even if the land and building were rented. Similarly, taxes of land, water, fertilizer, metals, would be passed on to the consumer. At the end of the day, Georgism boils down to a material use and consumption tax. Because there is no Georgist tax for capital gains or income, A janitor would pay the same tax as a CEO if they personally use and consume the same amount of raw materials. A stock trader making 1B/year pays the same as a carpenter, maybe less because the carpenter need more physical materials to work like wood & nails, while the stock trader just sends a few megabytes down the wires. Much of what humans exchange for value does not have a strong relation to scarce physical materials, primarily labor and money. The incomes of Apple or Google are not proportional to their material use, just like the the incomes of hyper billionaires is not proportional to their cheeseburger consumption. ( e.g. Musk's income is maybe that of 500,000 Americans, but he doesn't use as much land, eat as much food, or use as much fuel as 500,000 people). This is why a georgist tax regime is very regressive (which isnt inherently a bad thing). I just dont think it is a great social equalizer many proponents claim.