- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In the 19th century, there was an economic philosophy known as Georgism (or Geoism). To sum it up, they believe in socialism for land and capitalism for everything else. The logic is that while people can produce many stuff with their labor, they did not produce the land. Thus by paying a land value tax, they would be paying rent to mother nature. Georgists use this to argue that there should be a tax on land and that it should be the only tax. The movement died out after the early 20th century and very few jurisdictions ended up embracing this kind of tax.
A land value tax is a tax on land value. It differs from property taxes in that it only taxes the value of land, not anything built on it. I'm somewhat doubtful that this tax could collect enough revenue to replace everything else but it could have positive results. With the revenue collected, it could help reduce fiscal deficits, increase spending, or lower existing taxes. LVT would be progressive in nature because rich people tend to own more total land value with multiple houses and because poor people are more likely to rent. It would also discourage land speculation and instead encourage the efficient use of land. It's also less susceptible to tax evasion because of the full transparency of land value as opposed to personal or corporate income tax. The one issue I see is the potential negative effect on people who are land rich but cash poor such as on independent farmers and on people living in expensive cities (the cost being passed down as increased rent).
You may remember me posting about the consumption tax. A bunch of people pointed out that luxury goods tend to have elastic demand and that rich people would simply cheat the system by importing such goods. This is actually what happened in the early 90s when such as tax was implemented in the US; revenue turned out to be lower than expected. LVT doesn't have this problem because it cannot be moved and because it's not a commodity which is subject to supply and demand.
A land value tax is a tax on land value. It differs from property taxes in that it only taxes the value of land, not anything built on it. I'm somewhat doubtful that this tax could collect enough revenue to replace everything else but it could have positive results. With the revenue collected, it could help reduce fiscal deficits, increase spending, or lower existing taxes. LVT would be progressive in nature because rich people tend to own more total land value with multiple houses and because poor people are more likely to rent. It would also discourage land speculation and instead encourage the efficient use of land. It's also less susceptible to tax evasion because of the full transparency of land value as opposed to personal or corporate income tax. The one issue I see is the potential negative effect on people who are land rich but cash poor such as on independent farmers and on people living in expensive cities (the cost being passed down as increased rent).
You may remember me posting about the consumption tax. A bunch of people pointed out that luxury goods tend to have elastic demand and that rich people would simply cheat the system by importing such goods. This is actually what happened in the early 90s when such as tax was implemented in the US; revenue turned out to be lower than expected. LVT doesn't have this problem because it cannot be moved and because it's not a commodity which is subject to supply and demand.