[jampekka]

Especially contemporary Georgists seem to be fixated on land tax. In the 19th century a big focus on land kinda made sense because agriculture was such a huge part of the economy.

What's missed is the general idea. It's not land per se but any ownership that can be/is used for "rent seeking" (i.e. getting money without contributing any work). Nowadays things like intellectual property, natural resources and major infrastructure are the major things that should be taxed in this spirit.

Expanding this idea to that all means of production falls in the rent seeking category, one arrives at socialism.

[AnimalMuppet]

I don't buy either the premise or the conclusion of your last paragraph. If I own a sewing machine that I use to do piece work, that doesn't make my sewing machine rent-seeking. It makes it a tool that I use to do work.

But yes, expand this to IP. Tax Microsoft and Disney for the full value of their copyrights. If they don't want to pay the tax, they can let the copyright lapse early. Tax google for the full value of google.com. And so on.

[jampekka]

In the typical socialist divide of different kinds of property a sewing machine that you use yourself would not be considered privately owned capital (private property). In general "private property" are things that yield profits without the owner doing the work. If you rented out the sewing machine to somebody else to work for, the things get a bit blurrier. If you own a sweatshop with 100 sewing machines, it's clearly "private property".

The socialist terminology around the different forms of property is really bad and causes a lot of confusion.

[jjoonathan]

Ehh, but ownership is important for converting savings into investments and forcing investors to make decisions with skin in the game. Let's not throw those capitalism babies out with the class-conflict bathwater.

It's better to focus one-by-one on comparatively small reforms that each close off a single avenue of rent-seeking and can each be justified on sturdy economic footing by economists with minimal direct relation to he-who-must-not-be-named. This approach is less revolutionary (we know how those go), more propaganda resistant, and generally better.

[jampekka]

Is land tax really more propaganda resistent? There are justified concerns that it does disproportionally affect the less well off. And OTOH things like taxing wealth and capital gains are wildly popular.

Isn't class conflict a direct and inevitable result of private ownership of capital? What kind of arrangement makes companies pay more for labor than they have to?

[jjoonathan]

> Is land tax really more propaganda resistent?

Yes. Capital interests have spent the last 50 years laying minefields around the concepts of socialism. "Socialism is when more taxes," "socialism is when unions stop your employer from paying you more than your lazy coworker," "socialism is when you own nothing (as in property, not just assets)." Focusing on small, concrete reforms allow you to navigate around the mines.

> Isn't class conflict a direct and inevitable result of private ownership of capital?

No, it depends on the terms of ownership. Finite terms and progressive taxation can prevent the exponential runaway that establishes and perpetuates class structures.

> What kind of arrangement makes companies pay more for labor than they have to?

Policy that makes labor less desperate and therefore have higher bargaining power. There are many levers to pull.

[jampekka]

I agree that such smaller reforms are needed (and what we have need to be defended) but "clearing the name" of socialism can and should be done simultaneously. Also depends on country and audience how bad or good the socialism label is.

Also at least here in Finland land tax is more a center-right thing, and falls under the general umbrella of "neutral taxation", which in practice is usually a dog whistle for flat or regressive taxes.

> No, it depends on the terms of ownership. Finite terms and progressive taxation can prevent the exponential runaway that establishes and perpetuates class structures. > Policy that makes labor less desperate and therefore have higher bargaining power. There are many levers to pull.

Pedantically there's class conflict whenever there are classes that have conflicting interests (e.g. workers want more pay but owners want to pay less). But yes, its effects can be reduced with various policies.