I think you have quite a few misconceptions, but I'll focus on the main one here: most Georgists these days are not Single Taxers. Many/most of us hold a position like "To the greatest extent possible, we should shift taxes onto land rents. But if that doesn't raise enough revenue to fund the government, we can supplement it with other taxes."
The 'if' there depends entirely on a concept called ATCOR: All Taxes Come Out of Rent. The idea behind ATCOR is that if you cut a distortionary tax (like income tax), the boost to incomes will bid-up rents, ultimately being captured by landowners. If this is true in its strongest sense, it would mean we could completely replace existing taxes with LVT while capturing at least as much revenue as at present.
Now, many of us Georgists take a neutral stance on ACTOR, and basically believe "If ATRCOR is true, great! But if not, we can supplement LVT with some other taxes".
If you don't support a single tax "Single Tax Movement" nor LVT at 100% then you aren't a Georgist. I get that some ppl identify as a one irregardless, but I'm not a black disabled baby girl simply because I identify as one. A poll also wouldn't make me so though you're welcome to take one.
All throughout history there have been low land and land value taxes, but to support such never made one a Georgist as in many cases they predated him. I think part of the problem with the modern era is it's harder to build an online group around a more nuanced position like a "single-digit LVT on the state-level" than to unite around a more radical philosophy like "Georgism." The variation in such a group tends to be quite high, but then ppl become more radicalized overtime into going from Georgish to full-Georgist.
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.
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."
Let’s dive into the quotes…
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: “To what purpose do you contemplate that the money raised by your scheme of taxation should be applied?”George: “To the ordinary expenses of government … and, I am inclined to think, to the payment of a fixed sum to every citizen when he came to a certain age… 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.”—North 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 record…
He was influenced by Thomas Paine who laid out his view more clearly by saying… £15 should be paid to every individual upon turning 21, followed by £10 every year after turning 50 years old.
So I think Henry George’s view was probably that we should do something like this once increasing ordinary expenses started to do more harm than good.
And here’s the thing…
In America we already do more than this… Social Security (adjusted for life expectancy) provides a lot more money than £10 (adjusted to 2023 dollars would be £1,600) every year.
As to £15 (£2,500 in 2023 dollars) the government doesn’t 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 you’re 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 tables—they 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.
"why not have a progressive income tax" Because income tax discourages & distorts production.
"they could avoid all taxation by opting out of owning American land for storing their wealth ... art, commodities, stocks" That's fine, demand for art & commodities can be met by expanded supply & thus greater prosperity
"disproportionally taxing things with high negative externalities like smoking, alcohol, sugar, waste, and pollution". Yes, Pigouvian taxes are good. Here's me making the Georgist case for pollution taxes: https://x.com/GeorgistSteve/status/1694376540048429213?s=20
"why not also support an import tax" George was a massive advocate for free trade.
"what about public transportation & public utilities" Perhaps some of the most significant historic wins of the 'Single Tax' movement were the natioanlization of public trams & utilties. See Land & Liberty by Chris England.
"Why not 100% tax?" Most of this paragraph is dealt with by the ATCOR comment, but I'll just note that most Georgists have an appreciation for the fact that we've tied our economy in knots by basing most household wealth accumulation on land speculation via homeownership, and that a tactful transition towards LVT will be needed to make sure we don't crash the economy in the process.
All taxes distort production. I explained in the article how a 100% LVT could do that too.
"That's fine, demand for art & commodities can be met by expanded supply & thus greater prosperity," the value is in limiting the supply, which is why in the modern art world we see things like a red square be sold for millions of dollars.
"Yes, Pigouvian taxes are good," Yes, Pigouvian taxes are good, but Henry George only supported a single tax on land. It's not like in those days he wasn't aware that someone's behavior can negatively effect others so to discourage the behavior governments disproportionally taxed such things as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and voting. Yet despite that Henry George said, "Nahh dawg! Single tax all the way!"
I think even if public trams and utilities are government owned it makes sense its users should pay a fee. Don't you agree? For example, if we nationalized oil companies then surely the person using the oil should have to pay for it and not the general taxpayer?
"Most Georgists... a tactful transition towards LVT," for ANY Georgist to advocate for an immediate implementation of a 100% LVT proves they haven't thought much about what they claim to believe because what would happen is if land values are equal to 50% of median home values ($400,000) then you'd be hitting much of the middle class with a $200,000 tax bill in the first year! Insane, which is why I didn't even bother to make this point in my essay.
Parkanization won’t be captured by LVT if profiting off the land is effectively prohibited due to overdevelopment and overregulation, e.g. if NYC was reduced to 3 skyscrapers then what would be their land value?
Your article for assessing says, "[The market approach] is the most common approach" to deciding land value, which I agree is the best one, but what if those 3 skyscrapers hadn't been resold in decades? And aren't up for sale because they're condominiums where only the individual units are resold? If you can't admit there's some subjectivity in deciding how to arrive at land values then you aren't here in good faith and then if you do admit it then you must realize that to tax it at 100% would put tremendous pressure on businesses/residents to lobby the government/assessors to undervalue their own land since their competition would be doing the same.
"the value is in limiting the supply, which is why" Doesn't make sense, the supply of red square art is not artificially constrained. Besides, nobody is harmed when someone hoards art pieces (because again, more art can be made), whereas hoarding of land does force people to suboptimal locations.
"Henry George only supported a single tax on land" His definition of land included “all natural materials, forces, and opportunities" which naturally leads to taxes on those who privatize parts of the natural world by polluting it.
"if public trams and utilities are government owned it makes sense its users should pay a fee" Yes
"Parkanization won’t be captured by LVT if profiting off the land is effectively prohibited due to overdevelopment and overregulation" This is incomprehensible to me. Did you read the linked article?
"if NYC was reduced to 3 skyscrapers then what would be their land value?" Much less obviously.
"what if those 3 skyscrapers hadn't been resold in decades? And aren't up for sale because they're condominiums where only the individual units are resold?" You could still collect data on rents and do valuation with the income approach, which is what NYC literally already does.
"at least for rates up to around 95%," I explained how LVT does distort production. If it cuts into profit then it can cut into production, e.g. you'd be less likely to buy a skyscraper, knock it down, and build higher if all the while you're paying a 100% LVT because it’d make your investment that much riskier and more costly.
The point about art is if it isn't taxed then it can be used to store wealth. You said good because it'll create more art, but my point is that storing wealth in it doesn't have to do with creating more art and in fact part of the appeal is that the original red square can't be replicated (so long as chain of ownership is kept). In other words, the reason their wealth is stored in art is precisely because of scarcity, which an LVT would fail to tax and it wouldn’t necessarily have the side benefit as you claimed of producing more art.
Henry George believed in a single land value tax. Again, if he supported directly taxing things that created pollution then why didn't he say that? Some cities were filled with smoke and horse poop so why didn't he propose taxing it?
"Yes," okay and corporations are basically a liability insurance so then do you support my 3% gross corporate income tax? If you do that'd make you a smart man, but it'd also pull you that much more from Georgism IMO.
I had quickly read your aforementioned article and pointed out that I think the market approach is the best one. The income approach is worse.
If a home’s value is $400,000 and 50% is due to its land value then that would mean they’d be taxed $200,000 under a 100% LVT.
Your status (LRT) and the income approach seems to want to tax based not on market sale price, but “annual ground rent,” but how do you get at this number? To use my previous example what is the ground rent of our 3 NYC condominium skyscrapers that have no tenants?
This is all getting a bit overwhelming to reply to each time, so do you want to pick what you feel is the strongest issue for Georgism and I'll start by engaging with that one?
The one I'm most curious about is the last paragraph in regards to your LRT. How would you apply it to say NYC if all that existed was 3 NYC condominium skyscrapers that have no tenants? How much would they pay? Feel free to use your own placeholder numbers.
Here is what the actual Georgist platform in 1890 said.
As you can see, the world was very different then. The bulk of revenue for the US came in the form of tariffs, which are incredibly damaging. So, a lot of George's focus was on reducing tariffs and increasing the tax on land.
Modern Georgists must understand the principles of Georgism and apply them to modern times. One of the biggest ones that is glossed over/ignored in this article is "We are in favor of raising all public revenues for national, state, county, and municipal purposes by a single tax upon land values, irrespective of their improvements, AND OF THE ABOLITION OF ALL FORMS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION."
Modern Georgists have to focus on this "indirect taxation" bit, quite a lot. It is extensive, much more so than in George's time, and it depresses the overall wealth and prosperity of our society just the same as a direct tax on income or sales, or whatever.
And the last bit "With respect to monopolies other than the monopoly of land... which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned, through their proper government"
Georgism is not just "a single tax on land". Its much more. Its a philosophy of economy and a set of principles that says, amongst other things, the right source of public revenue is land rent. Realistically, we won't be a purist Georgist society in my lifetime, but if you're working from that common set of ideals I'm happy to call you a Georgist right along side me.
A low tariff is good though (https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/the-case-for-tariffs), which if I can convince someone reading this of that then it’d be just one more reason why I don’t think they’d be a Georgist. It’s especially important to have a tariff with a high land value tax because of how it’s much easier to offshore and work abroad in our digital age.
I think you have quite a few misconceptions, but I'll focus on the main one here: most Georgists these days are not Single Taxers. Many/most of us hold a position like "To the greatest extent possible, we should shift taxes onto land rents. But if that doesn't raise enough revenue to fund the government, we can supplement it with other taxes."
The 'if' there depends entirely on a concept called ATCOR: All Taxes Come Out of Rent. The idea behind ATCOR is that if you cut a distortionary tax (like income tax), the boost to incomes will bid-up rents, ultimately being captured by landowners. If this is true in its strongest sense, it would mean we could completely replace existing taxes with LVT while capturing at least as much revenue as at present.
Now, many of us Georgists take a neutral stance on ACTOR, and basically believe "If ATRCOR is true, great! But if not, we can supplement LVT with some other taxes".
To show you that that's true, I'm running a twitter poll on that exact topic right now: https://x.com/GeorgistSteve/status/1702032876831682735?s=20
So in short, I think your core reason for not calling yourself a Georgist is a bit misguided.
If you don't support a single tax "Single Tax Movement" nor LVT at 100% then you aren't a Georgist. I get that some ppl identify as a one irregardless, but I'm not a black disabled baby girl simply because I identify as one. A poll also wouldn't make me so though you're welcome to take one.
All throughout history there have been low land and land value taxes, but to support such never made one a Georgist as in many cases they predated him. I think part of the problem with the modern era is it's harder to build an online group around a more nuanced position like a "single-digit LVT on the state-level" than to unite around a more radical philosophy like "Georgism." The variation in such a group tends to be quite high, but then ppl become more radicalized overtime into going from Georgish to full-Georgist.
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.
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."
Let’s dive into the quotes…
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: “To what purpose do you contemplate that the money raised by your scheme of taxation should be applied?”George: “To the ordinary expenses of government … and, I am inclined to think, to the payment of a fixed sum to every citizen when he came to a certain age… 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.”—North 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 record…
He was influenced by Thomas Paine who laid out his view more clearly by saying… £15 should be paid to every individual upon turning 21, followed by £10 every year after turning 50 years old.
So I think Henry George’s view was probably that we should do something like this once increasing ordinary expenses started to do more harm than good.
And here’s the thing…
In America we already do more than this… Social Security (adjusted for life expectancy) provides a lot more money than £10 (adjusted to 2023 dollars would be £1,600) every year.
As to £15 (£2,500 in 2023 dollars) the government doesn’t 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 you’re 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 tables—they 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.
For some specific responses:
"why not have a progressive income tax" Because income tax discourages & distorts production.
"they could avoid all taxation by opting out of owning American land for storing their wealth ... art, commodities, stocks" That's fine, demand for art & commodities can be met by expanded supply & thus greater prosperity
"disproportionally taxing things with high negative externalities like smoking, alcohol, sugar, waste, and pollution". Yes, Pigouvian taxes are good. Here's me making the Georgist case for pollution taxes: https://x.com/GeorgistSteve/status/1694376540048429213?s=20
"why not also support an import tax" George was a massive advocate for free trade.
"what about public transportation & public utilities" Perhaps some of the most significant historic wins of the 'Single Tax' movement were the natioanlization of public trams & utilties. See Land & Liberty by Chris England.
"if all our problems were so simple then we would’ve solved them long ago" No Silver Bullets to the Werewolf Problem. https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/no-silver-bullets-to-the-werewolf
"Why not 100% tax?" Most of this paragraph is dealt with by the ATCOR comment, but I'll just note that most Georgists have an appreciation for the fact that we've tied our economy in knots by basing most household wealth accumulation on land speculation via homeownership, and that a tactful transition towards LVT will be needed to make sure we don't crash the economy in the process.
"they’ll vote to increase parkanization" The value of parks flows into nearby land values (it boosts the value of both vacant and improved properties alike), and would therefore be captured by the LVT. I helped write an article about this: https://schalkenbach.org/greenspace-and-gentrification-how-to-ensure-that-urban-parks-gardens-benefit-everyone/
"it’d be more difficult to determine the land’s market value" https://gameofrent.com/content/can-land-be-accurately-assessed
I'll stop here, I'm getting a little frustrated that you keep raising issues that Georgists have written extensively about.
All taxes distort production. I explained in the article how a 100% LVT could do that too.
"That's fine, demand for art & commodities can be met by expanded supply & thus greater prosperity," the value is in limiting the supply, which is why in the modern art world we see things like a red square be sold for millions of dollars.
"Yes, Pigouvian taxes are good," Yes, Pigouvian taxes are good, but Henry George only supported a single tax on land. It's not like in those days he wasn't aware that someone's behavior can negatively effect others so to discourage the behavior governments disproportionally taxed such things as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and voting. Yet despite that Henry George said, "Nahh dawg! Single tax all the way!"
I think even if public trams and utilities are government owned it makes sense its users should pay a fee. Don't you agree? For example, if we nationalized oil companies then surely the person using the oil should have to pay for it and not the general taxpayer?
"Most Georgists... a tactful transition towards LVT," for ANY Georgist to advocate for an immediate implementation of a 100% LVT proves they haven't thought much about what they claim to believe because what would happen is if land values are equal to 50% of median home values ($400,000) then you'd be hitting much of the middle class with a $200,000 tax bill in the first year! Insane, which is why I didn't even bother to make this point in my essay.
Parkanization won’t be captured by LVT if profiting off the land is effectively prohibited due to overdevelopment and overregulation, e.g. if NYC was reduced to 3 skyscrapers then what would be their land value?
Your article for assessing says, "[The market approach] is the most common approach" to deciding land value, which I agree is the best one, but what if those 3 skyscrapers hadn't been resold in decades? And aren't up for sale because they're condominiums where only the individual units are resold? If you can't admit there's some subjectivity in deciding how to arrive at land values then you aren't here in good faith and then if you do admit it then you must realize that to tax it at 100% would put tremendous pressure on businesses/residents to lobby the government/assessors to undervalue their own land since their competition would be doing the same.
"All taxes distort production" LVT doesn't, at least for rates up to around 95%. https://dors.dk/files/media/publikationer/arbejdspapirer/2017/02_arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf
"the value is in limiting the supply, which is why" Doesn't make sense, the supply of red square art is not artificially constrained. Besides, nobody is harmed when someone hoards art pieces (because again, more art can be made), whereas hoarding of land does force people to suboptimal locations.
"Henry George only supported a single tax on land" His definition of land included “all natural materials, forces, and opportunities" which naturally leads to taxes on those who privatize parts of the natural world by polluting it.
"if public trams and utilities are government owned it makes sense its users should pay a fee" Yes
"$200,000 tax bill in the first year" 100% LVT captures 100% of land *rents*, which on a $20,0000 piece of land would be around $10,000. https://x.com/GeorgistSteve/status/1654267028377853959?s=20
"Parkanization won’t be captured by LVT if profiting off the land is effectively prohibited due to overdevelopment and overregulation" This is incomprehensible to me. Did you read the linked article?
"if NYC was reduced to 3 skyscrapers then what would be their land value?" Much less obviously.
"what if those 3 skyscrapers hadn't been resold in decades? And aren't up for sale because they're condominiums where only the individual units are resold?" You could still collect data on rents and do valuation with the income approach, which is what NYC literally already does.
"at least for rates up to around 95%," I explained how LVT does distort production. If it cuts into profit then it can cut into production, e.g. you'd be less likely to buy a skyscraper, knock it down, and build higher if all the while you're paying a 100% LVT because it’d make your investment that much riskier and more costly.
The point about art is if it isn't taxed then it can be used to store wealth. You said good because it'll create more art, but my point is that storing wealth in it doesn't have to do with creating more art and in fact part of the appeal is that the original red square can't be replicated (so long as chain of ownership is kept). In other words, the reason their wealth is stored in art is precisely because of scarcity, which an LVT would fail to tax and it wouldn’t necessarily have the side benefit as you claimed of producing more art.
Henry George believed in a single land value tax. Again, if he supported directly taxing things that created pollution then why didn't he say that? Some cities were filled with smoke and horse poop so why didn't he propose taxing it?
"Yes," okay and corporations are basically a liability insurance so then do you support my 3% gross corporate income tax? If you do that'd make you a smart man, but it'd also pull you that much more from Georgism IMO.
I had quickly read your aforementioned article and pointed out that I think the market approach is the best one. The income approach is worse.
If a home’s value is $400,000 and 50% is due to its land value then that would mean they’d be taxed $200,000 under a 100% LVT.
Your status (LRT) and the income approach seems to want to tax based not on market sale price, but “annual ground rent,” but how do you get at this number? To use my previous example what is the ground rent of our 3 NYC condominium skyscrapers that have no tenants?
This is all getting a bit overwhelming to reply to each time, so do you want to pick what you feel is the strongest issue for Georgism and I'll start by engaging with that one?
The one I'm most curious about is the last paragraph in regards to your LRT. How would you apply it to say NYC if all that existed was 3 NYC condominium skyscrapers that have no tenants? How much would they pay? Feel free to use your own placeholder numbers.
https://hgarchives.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/single-league-of-the-united-states-platform-adopted-september-3-1890.pdf
Here is what the actual Georgist platform in 1890 said.
As you can see, the world was very different then. The bulk of revenue for the US came in the form of tariffs, which are incredibly damaging. So, a lot of George's focus was on reducing tariffs and increasing the tax on land.
Modern Georgists must understand the principles of Georgism and apply them to modern times. One of the biggest ones that is glossed over/ignored in this article is "We are in favor of raising all public revenues for national, state, county, and municipal purposes by a single tax upon land values, irrespective of their improvements, AND OF THE ABOLITION OF ALL FORMS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION."
Modern Georgists have to focus on this "indirect taxation" bit, quite a lot. It is extensive, much more so than in George's time, and it depresses the overall wealth and prosperity of our society just the same as a direct tax on income or sales, or whatever.
And the last bit "With respect to monopolies other than the monopoly of land... which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned, through their proper government"
Georgism is not just "a single tax on land". Its much more. Its a philosophy of economy and a set of principles that says, amongst other things, the right source of public revenue is land rent. Realistically, we won't be a purist Georgist society in my lifetime, but if you're working from that common set of ideals I'm happy to call you a Georgist right along side me.
Exactly it endorsed a single 100% LVT.
A low tariff is good though (https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/the-case-for-tariffs), which if I can convince someone reading this of that then it’d be just one more reason why I don’t think they’d be a Georgist. It’s especially important to have a tariff with a high land value tax because of how it’s much easier to offshore and work abroad in our digital age.