[allturtles]

Agreed that the premises (land ownership is a moral wrong) and conclusions (we should adopt a land-value tax) of this article are strangely disconnected. If land ownership is the problem, then Georgism is not the solution, it's just a different property tax regime, one that will only have a meaningful effect in urban areas where land values constitute the bulk of total property value.

[legitster]

Georgism is such an interesting rabbit hole to go down. It was a very popular political movement, his proposals had near universal endorsement from economists across the political spectrum... and then it just vanished.

[pyrados]

Henry George recognized that there were benefits to private control, security of tenure, productivity, etc. These ideas were well recognized by classical economists/liberals, Locke, etc.

There is ultimately no -perfect- solution to the land problem because 2 objects cannot exist in the same place at the same time so -any- solution will be somewhat arbitrary.

However, the advantage one plot of land has over another manifests in its rental value. Therefore, you pay everyone else according to the natural advantage your location has. If only marginal land is left for me, then that reflects in the fact that I pay nothing and receive a share of the differential advantage in return.

Nothing in society will ever be perfect, but compared to alternatives and also recognizing that other forms of land control are also problematic, the solution in the article makes quite perfect sense.

If the full rental value of land were collected then its selling price would be $0. That is a far cry from the tax system we have today. Urban locations are the most relevant for society, but all the same there would be benefits to farmland use as well. The selling price of land is recognized as the primary barrier to entry for new farmers.