Another problem with Georgism is that the taxes depend regressively on ownership. If I own a factory and you own a neighbouring apartment building that houses the workers, my factory makes your property more valuable and vice versa, and we both both get taxed for that externality. If instead I own both the factory and the apartment build…
Another problem with Georgism is that the taxes depend regressively on ownership. If I own a factory and you own a neighbouring apartment building that houses the workers, my factory makes your property more valuable and vice versa, and we both both get taxed for that externality. If instead I own both the factory and the apartment building, the positive externalities have been internalized, and the added value thus does not get taxed. The equilibrium is that whole cities become owned by the same entity, who then pays very low taxes.
Yes, in the version where land is taxed based on market value. Another alternative would be to tax it based on what value it would have in the absence of nearby infrastructure, practically its agricultural value as based only on factors like the local climate. I find the arguments for the latter version somewhat stronger. But it doesn't seem to be what self-proclaimed Georgists advocate for these days, and it would yield little revenue in a modern economy.
Another problem with Georgism is that the taxes depend regressively on ownership. If I own a factory and you own a neighbouring apartment building that houses the workers, my factory makes your property more valuable and vice versa, and we both both get taxed for that externality. If instead I own both the factory and the apartment building, the positive externalities have been internalized, and the added value thus does not get taxed. The equilibrium is that whole cities become owned by the same entity, who then pays very low taxes.
Yes, in the version where land is taxed based on market value. Another alternative would be to tax it based on what value it would have in the absence of nearby infrastructure, practically its agricultural value as based only on factors like the local climate. I find the arguments for the latter version somewhat stronger. But it doesn't seem to be what self-proclaimed Georgists advocate for these days, and it would yield little revenue in a modern economy.