Okay I mean if you want to apply a purity test that Georgist communities themselves don't apply, that's your prerogative, but it's not a very biting critique.
I'd say a more common entry requirement is something like "wants workers to keep more of the fruits of their labor, achieved through a more equitable sharing of natural resource rents, especially land rents".
Okay I mean if you want to apply a purity test that Georgist communities themselves don't apply, that's your prerogative, but it's not a very biting critique.
I'd say a more common entry requirement is something like "wants workers to keep more of the fruits of their labor, achieved through a more equitable sharing of natural resource rents, especially land rents".
Many modern LVT supporters see it as a way to fund UBI. When I critique them that there's no limiting principle to UBI they say that as a "Georgist" they only believe in the single tax so that's the limiting factor (Henry George didn't endorse UBI), but then as I point out to them many "Georgists" (which is already a small segment of the population) do support additional taxes and exemptions so not much of a limiting principle in reality.
Nonetheless, if people want to go around calling themselves Georgists who disagree with his central belief in some key ways then that's there prerogative as well. I'm more open to such individuals calling themselves Geoists or caveating it by calling one self say a Neo-Classical Georgist in order to signify some difference from his original teachings.
The limiting principle can be either [give everyone their rightful share of the land rents] or [give everyone enough to afford a basic standard of living, balanced against the distortive harms of income tax].
I just don't really find your purity test to have much value (in principle or in strategy), as exemplified by the frustration of having to deal with "I like LVT but Georgism is wrong" critiques from people who otherwise agree with all the practical current objectives of the movement.
In order to have an intelligent conversation about a thing we need to agree on what that thing is otherwise we can end up talking past each other as the powers-that-be can use raw power to gallop through the murky fog we've created around each other in the name of politeness/unity so that they can implement whatever aspects best advance their own interest.
There's no need to be frustrated in clarifying our differences. I enjoy battling in the arena of ideas. And there's no reason why in acknowledging our differences we can't still fight for the things we agree on such as a state-based single-digit LVT. Americans were willing to work with the communists during WW2. Me agreeing with you on this baseline goal is no different. ;)
Well no, they're limited by the principles I included in the square brackets, both of which have a max (value of land rent in the former, harms of taxing incomes in the latter). If those aren't sufficient for you then your critique can be applied to any policy: "oh you want to tax income, what's to stop the public from taxing more and more".
The rest of the conversation (and the premise of your initial blog post) hinges entirely on what one considers to be a Georgist. I see no value in using the strict single taxer definition, especially when whether single tax is even viable depends entirely on unanswered questions around ATCOR. Seems way more productive to build momentum around the definition I laid out from the onset.
It's easier for a politician to run on more free money for everyone than I'm going to raise your taxes.
This post is about why a single tax and a 100% LVT aren't best. You agree with me on the former, but not so much on the latter. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rate.
If your first paragraph were true, we'd already have high taxes & high UBI. Voters don't just like free money, they also hate paying taxes. None of this has any bearing on a normative discussion about what taxes should be.
I personally don't even support a 100% LVT until it can be determined that assessments are good enough to support it. I think ~90% is the upper limit to aim for, and we can see how things look at that point.
My first paragraph is true. Political science is all about how the electorate wants more spending, less taxes, and less debt.
"I personally don't even support a 100% LVT until," that's good to hear, but I suppose where we'll have to agree to disagree is aiming for a ~90% upper limit as something to initially aim for because not only do I think it'd be bad for the economy, but I think politically it'd be much easier to implement LVT as a tax cut.
"more spending, less taxes" Yes exactly, the desire for more UBI is offset by the higher taxes. So it won't automatically ratchet. And I offered limiting normative principles as well.
"not only do I think it'd be bad for the economy". No it won't, it'll be much better than our un-meritocratic system which rewards rent seeking and relies on way more harmful taxes.
You should learn more about Georgism/Henry George before you start lecturing Georgists on what Henry George believed.
He absolutely did endorse an UBI, even if he didn't think it was as fundamental and he didn't use the language we use, but language of his own times to describe something fairly radical.
You've basically disqualified yourself to being taken seriously about what you think about what Henry George thought. You clearly based your knowledge on some summaries and what online Georgists claim about HG.
Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Any intelligent reader can clearly see I'm well-versed in Georgism so it hurts your credibility to try to pretend like I'm not. It also hurts your credibility when you say that he "absolutely" did endorse a UBI. You can argue that the cherry-picked quotes you linked to hint at him supporting it, but if you read the comments on the article itself you can see that there's disagreement even on this point. In other words, he never explicitly endorsed it (declared public approval of), but Georgists differ on whether he implied support for it.
I think my assessment is fair thus far so to take a little aside I wrote to dismiss all my other points I made is a low-blow, which I suspect you want to try to destroy my credibility among those who know less about Georgism than both of us because you know my arguments are so powerful you struggle to confront them them fairly. Seek truth, not to "win."
LetтАЩs dive into the quotesтАж
I think most of them were weak and if taken on its own point more clearly to funding the government for ordinary operations as well as Social Security, but nonetheless the strongest quote is one of the middle ones...
> Fields: тАЬTo what purpose do you contemplate that the money raised by your scheme of taxation should be applied?тАЭGeorge: тАЬTo the ordinary expenses of government тАж and, I am inclined to think, to the payment of a fixed sum to every citizen when he came to a certain ageтАж if it were to appear that further extension of the functions of government would involve demoralisation, then the surplus revenue might be divided per capita.тАЭтАФNorth American Review, July, 1885
But notice his conditions... 1) ordinary expenses met; 2) increasing ordinary expenses would just create demoralisation; 3) payment of fixed sum to every citizen (how old?)
This differs from what from I hear UBI/LVT supporters want, which is that they'd support a bill today that would attempt to tie the two together with a fixed sum paid monthly or annually starting at 18 years old, but as I explained in my article a 100% LVT would cause total government revenue to drop by a huge amount to say $1 trillion, which wouldn't even be enough to meet our ordinary expenses let alone pay everyone a monthly sum of money.
For his actual position I also look at the historical recordтАж
He was influenced by Thomas Paine who laid out his view more clearly by sayingтАж ┬г15 should be paid to every individual upon turning 21, followed by ┬г10 every year after turning 50 years old.
So I think Henry GeorgeтАЩs view was probably that we should do something like this once increasing ordinary expenses started to do more harm than good.
And hereтАЩs the thingтАж
In America we already do more than thisтАж Social Security (adjusted for life expectancy) provides a lot more money than ┬г10 (adjusted to 2023 dollars would be ┬г1,600) every year.
As to ┬г15 (┬г2,500 in 2023 dollars) the government doesnтАЩt provide this, but much more, e.g. in my state of NY we spend about $25K per student per year with states moving more toward vouchers since the pandemic. By the time youтАЩre 18 years old you can also qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, child tax credits (in those days a lot of 21 years old had kids), earned income tax credits, college grants, etc.
The ad hominem is relevant. I am attacking your knowledge of Georgism and your ability to try to police what Georgists call themselves. I don't think you are "well-versed in Georgism".
For example: "more clearly to funding the government for ordinary operations as well as Social Security". Well, George made all these quotes well before the existence of the social security system, so how can you claim that falls under the "ordinary operations" of government?
George talked extensively about the role of government after LVT. But most importantly, he considered all of this as COULD, rather than OUGHT. We OUGHT to collect the rent of land, but what to do with it was political question that was separate.
I don't think you can read his full works and understand his philosophy and not think he wouldn't endorse something approximating a modern UBI. But you have to consider how different the world he lived in was to understand that his quotes may not align 100%.
"Society would thus approach the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy, the promised land of Herbert Spencer, the abolition of government. But of government only as a directing and repressive power. It would at the same time, and in the same degree, become possible for it to realize the dream of socialism. All this simplification and abrogation of the present functions of government would make possible the assumption of certain other functions which are now pressing for recognition. Government could take upon itself the transmission of messages by telegraph, as well as by mail; of building and operating railroads, as well as of opening and maintaining common roads. With present functions so simplified and reduced, functions such as these could be assumed without danger or strain, and would be under the supervision of public attention, which is now distracted. There would be a great and increasing surplus revenue from the taxation of land values, for material progress, which would go on with greatly accelerated rapidity, would tend constantly to increase rent. This revenue arising from the common property could be applied to the common benefit, as were the revenues of Sparta. We might not establish public tablesтАФthey would be unnecessary; but we could establish public baths, museums, libraries, gardens, lecture rooms, music and dancing halls, theaters, universities, technical schools, shooting galleries, play grounds, gymnasiums, etc. Heat, light, and motive power, as well as water, might be conducted through our streets at public expense; our roads be lined with fruit trees; discoverers and inventors rewarded, scientific investigations supported; and in a thousand ways the public revenues made to foster efforts for the public benefit. We should reach the ideal of the socialist, but not through governmental repression. Government would change its character, and would become the administration of a great co-operative society. It would become merely the agency by which the common property was administered for the common benefit." - Progress and Poverty
As for your revenue question, you completely misunderstand the difference between land VALUE and land PRICE. Price will go down, but value will not. If you tax land rents, exchange prices goes down, but value doesn't. The value is just redirected to the government (or whatever entity you think is legitimate depending on your preference). Its a common misunderstanding, but one that again clearly demonstrates that you are not "well-versed" in Georgism. It's the basis for the actually somewhat challenging question of how you assess the value of something for which there is no exchange price. (Which isn't insurmountable either but is actually a question Georgists have to answer.).
Honestly after reading your comment I'm quite confident you've not read Progress and Poverty in its entirety. And if you did you need to read it again with a closer attention to detail.
So, in summary, if you don't want to call yourself a Georgist that's fine, but it takes an incredible amount of hubris to try to police how a movement/activists define themselves, from outside the movement, while clearly not understanding what you're even trying to police.
I'm free to say you're not something just as you're free to say I am something. You think my definition is wrong so just say that and then define Georgism yourself instead of acting like defining things is bad. How do you define it?
I know Social Security came after. My point is that in some of those quotes he's referring to an old age pension system and not UBI (though you could argue SS is increasingly like UBI, but UBI supporters advocate more for a recurring payment as of 18 years old, which Henry George never explicitly endorsed).
Yes, he talked about OUGHT for tax and not OUGHT for UBI. My point WASN'T that you can't be a Georgist and support UBI. You can so long as IMO you support a single 100% land value tax (or something close to it).
The fact Georgists haven't settled on "the somewhat challenging question of how you assess the value of something" is a major red flag for why we shouldn't implement a 100% LVT. I've elaborated more on the valuation question in Stephen's comments.
Okay I mean if you want to apply a purity test that Georgist communities themselves don't apply, that's your prerogative, but it's not a very biting critique.
I'd say a more common entry requirement is something like "wants workers to keep more of the fruits of their labor, achieved through a more equitable sharing of natural resource rents, especially land rents".
Many modern LVT supporters see it as a way to fund UBI. When I critique them that there's no limiting principle to UBI they say that as a "Georgist" they only believe in the single tax so that's the limiting factor (Henry George didn't endorse UBI), but then as I point out to them many "Georgists" (which is already a small segment of the population) do support additional taxes and exemptions so not much of a limiting principle in reality.
Nonetheless, if people want to go around calling themselves Georgists who disagree with his central belief in some key ways then that's there prerogative as well. I'm more open to such individuals calling themselves Geoists or caveating it by calling one self say a Neo-Classical Georgist in order to signify some difference from his original teachings.
The limiting principle can be either [give everyone their rightful share of the land rents] or [give everyone enough to afford a basic standard of living, balanced against the distortive harms of income tax].
I just don't really find your purity test to have much value (in principle or in strategy), as exemplified by the frustration of having to deal with "I like LVT but Georgism is wrong" critiques from people who otherwise agree with all the practical current objectives of the movement.
Neither of those are limiting principles as the electorate could demand under the guise of such abstract language evermore UBI: https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/the-best-alternative-to-ubi
What you call a "purity test" I call "clarity."
In order to have an intelligent conversation about a thing we need to agree on what that thing is otherwise we can end up talking past each other as the powers-that-be can use raw power to gallop through the murky fog we've created around each other in the name of politeness/unity so that they can implement whatever aspects best advance their own interest.
There's no need to be frustrated in clarifying our differences. I enjoy battling in the arena of ideas. And there's no reason why in acknowledging our differences we can't still fight for the things we agree on such as a state-based single-digit LVT. Americans were willing to work with the communists during WW2. Me agreeing with you on this baseline goal is no different. ;)
Well no, they're limited by the principles I included in the square brackets, both of which have a max (value of land rent in the former, harms of taxing incomes in the latter). If those aren't sufficient for you then your critique can be applied to any policy: "oh you want to tax income, what's to stop the public from taxing more and more".
The rest of the conversation (and the premise of your initial blog post) hinges entirely on what one considers to be a Georgist. I see no value in using the strict single taxer definition, especially when whether single tax is even viable depends entirely on unanswered questions around ATCOR. Seems way more productive to build momentum around the definition I laid out from the onset.
It's easier for a politician to run on more free money for everyone than I'm going to raise your taxes.
This post is about why a single tax and a 100% LVT aren't best. You agree with me on the former, but not so much on the latter. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rate.
If your first paragraph were true, we'd already have high taxes & high UBI. Voters don't just like free money, they also hate paying taxes. None of this has any bearing on a normative discussion about what taxes should be.
I personally don't even support a 100% LVT until it can be determined that assessments are good enough to support it. I think ~90% is the upper limit to aim for, and we can see how things look at that point.
My first paragraph is true. Political science is all about how the electorate wants more spending, less taxes, and less debt.
"I personally don't even support a 100% LVT until," that's good to hear, but I suppose where we'll have to agree to disagree is aiming for a ~90% upper limit as something to initially aim for because not only do I think it'd be bad for the economy, but I think politically it'd be much easier to implement LVT as a tax cut.
"more spending, less taxes" Yes exactly, the desire for more UBI is offset by the higher taxes. So it won't automatically ratchet. And I offered limiting normative principles as well.
"not only do I think it'd be bad for the economy". No it won't, it'll be much better than our un-meritocratic system which rewards rent seeking and relies on way more harmful taxes.
You should learn more about Georgism/Henry George before you start lecturing Georgists on what Henry George believed.
He absolutely did endorse an UBI, even if he didn't think it was as fundamental and he didn't use the language we use, but language of his own times to describe something fairly radical.
https://www.progress.org/articles/henry-george-in-favor-of-a-basic-income
You've basically disqualified yourself to being taken seriously about what you think about what Henry George thought. You clearly based your knowledge on some summaries and what online Georgists claim about HG.
Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Any intelligent reader can clearly see I'm well-versed in Georgism so it hurts your credibility to try to pretend like I'm not. It also hurts your credibility when you say that he "absolutely" did endorse a UBI. You can argue that the cherry-picked quotes you linked to hint at him supporting it, but if you read the comments on the article itself you can see that there's disagreement even on this point. In other words, he never explicitly endorsed it (declared public approval of), but Georgists differ on whether he implied support for it.
I think my assessment is fair thus far so to take a little aside I wrote to dismiss all my other points I made is a low-blow, which I suspect you want to try to destroy my credibility among those who know less about Georgism than both of us because you know my arguments are so powerful you struggle to confront them them fairly. Seek truth, not to "win."
LetтАЩs dive into the quotesтАж
I think most of them were weak and if taken on its own point more clearly to funding the government for ordinary operations as well as Social Security, but nonetheless the strongest quote is one of the middle ones...
> Fields: тАЬTo what purpose do you contemplate that the money raised by your scheme of taxation should be applied?тАЭGeorge: тАЬTo the ordinary expenses of government тАж and, I am inclined to think, to the payment of a fixed sum to every citizen when he came to a certain ageтАж if it were to appear that further extension of the functions of government would involve demoralisation, then the surplus revenue might be divided per capita.тАЭтАФNorth American Review, July, 1885
But notice his conditions... 1) ordinary expenses met; 2) increasing ordinary expenses would just create demoralisation; 3) payment of fixed sum to every citizen (how old?)
This differs from what from I hear UBI/LVT supporters want, which is that they'd support a bill today that would attempt to tie the two together with a fixed sum paid monthly or annually starting at 18 years old, but as I explained in my article a 100% LVT would cause total government revenue to drop by a huge amount to say $1 trillion, which wouldn't even be enough to meet our ordinary expenses let alone pay everyone a monthly sum of money.
For his actual position I also look at the historical recordтАж
He was influenced by Thomas Paine who laid out his view more clearly by sayingтАж ┬г15 should be paid to every individual upon turning 21, followed by ┬г10 every year after turning 50 years old.
So I think Henry GeorgeтАЩs view was probably that we should do something like this once increasing ordinary expenses started to do more harm than good.
And hereтАЩs the thingтАж
In America we already do more than thisтАж Social Security (adjusted for life expectancy) provides a lot more money than ┬г10 (adjusted to 2023 dollars would be ┬г1,600) every year.
As to ┬г15 (┬г2,500 in 2023 dollars) the government doesnтАЩt provide this, but much more, e.g. in my state of NY we spend about $25K per student per year with states moving more toward vouchers since the pandemic. By the time youтАЩre 18 years old you can also qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, child tax credits (in those days a lot of 21 years old had kids), earned income tax credits, college grants, etc.
Numbers matter.
The ad hominem is relevant. I am attacking your knowledge of Georgism and your ability to try to police what Georgists call themselves. I don't think you are "well-versed in Georgism".
For example: "more clearly to funding the government for ordinary operations as well as Social Security". Well, George made all these quotes well before the existence of the social security system, so how can you claim that falls under the "ordinary operations" of government?
George talked extensively about the role of government after LVT. But most importantly, he considered all of this as COULD, rather than OUGHT. We OUGHT to collect the rent of land, but what to do with it was political question that was separate.
I don't think you can read his full works and understand his philosophy and not think he wouldn't endorse something approximating a modern UBI. But you have to consider how different the world he lived in was to understand that his quotes may not align 100%.
"Society would thus approach the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy, the promised land of Herbert Spencer, the abolition of government. But of government only as a directing and repressive power. It would at the same time, and in the same degree, become possible for it to realize the dream of socialism. All this simplification and abrogation of the present functions of government would make possible the assumption of certain other functions which are now pressing for recognition. Government could take upon itself the transmission of messages by telegraph, as well as by mail; of building and operating railroads, as well as of opening and maintaining common roads. With present functions so simplified and reduced, functions such as these could be assumed without danger or strain, and would be under the supervision of public attention, which is now distracted. There would be a great and increasing surplus revenue from the taxation of land values, for material progress, which would go on with greatly accelerated rapidity, would tend constantly to increase rent. This revenue arising from the common property could be applied to the common benefit, as were the revenues of Sparta. We might not establish public tablesтАФthey would be unnecessary; but we could establish public baths, museums, libraries, gardens, lecture rooms, music and dancing halls, theaters, universities, technical schools, shooting galleries, play grounds, gymnasiums, etc. Heat, light, and motive power, as well as water, might be conducted through our streets at public expense; our roads be lined with fruit trees; discoverers and inventors rewarded, scientific investigations supported; and in a thousand ways the public revenues made to foster efforts for the public benefit. We should reach the ideal of the socialist, but not through governmental repression. Government would change its character, and would become the administration of a great co-operative society. It would become merely the agency by which the common property was administered for the common benefit." - Progress and Poverty
As for your revenue question, you completely misunderstand the difference between land VALUE and land PRICE. Price will go down, but value will not. If you tax land rents, exchange prices goes down, but value doesn't. The value is just redirected to the government (or whatever entity you think is legitimate depending on your preference). Its a common misunderstanding, but one that again clearly demonstrates that you are not "well-versed" in Georgism. It's the basis for the actually somewhat challenging question of how you assess the value of something for which there is no exchange price. (Which isn't insurmountable either but is actually a question Georgists have to answer.).
Honestly after reading your comment I'm quite confident you've not read Progress and Poverty in its entirety. And if you did you need to read it again with a closer attention to detail.
So, in summary, if you don't want to call yourself a Georgist that's fine, but it takes an incredible amount of hubris to try to police how a movement/activists define themselves, from outside the movement, while clearly not understanding what you're even trying to police.
It's that simple.
I'm free to say you're not something just as you're free to say I am something. You think my definition is wrong so just say that and then define Georgism yourself instead of acting like defining things is bad. How do you define it?
I know Social Security came after. My point is that in some of those quotes he's referring to an old age pension system and not UBI (though you could argue SS is increasingly like UBI, but UBI supporters advocate more for a recurring payment as of 18 years old, which Henry George never explicitly endorsed).
Yes, he talked about OUGHT for tax and not OUGHT for UBI. My point WASN'T that you can't be a Georgist and support UBI. You can so long as IMO you support a single 100% land value tax (or something close to it).
The fact Georgists haven't settled on "the somewhat challenging question of how you assess the value of something" is a major red flag for why we shouldn't implement a 100% LVT. I've elaborated more on the valuation question in Stephen's comments.