WTF I'm a Georgist now.

@rehobalint1100

3 жыл бұрын

Same, it sounds awesome and you heard it! It works and it works well!

@derrickforeal

3 жыл бұрын

You mean socialists

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

@@derrickforeal Henry George rejected the notion of Socialism, and Karl Marx himself dismissed Georgism as 'Capitalists' last ditch'. The government does not control the economy, they only manage natural resources that belongs to the public by collecting rent through taxes.

@comradefreedom8275

3 жыл бұрын

@@taoliu3949 Under socialism, the government doesn't control the economy. It's about workers owning the means of production, democracy in the workplace and abolition of the commodity form. I don't exactly see how Georgism's idea of land being common property is incompatible with socialism.

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

@@comradefreedom8275 Um, the people take control of the economy via the government. Thats how socialism works. It's in the name itself, it comes from Latin sociare which means to combine and to share. The government controls the gains from production and redistribute it to society (the workers). Even if we use your definition, it still goes against Georgism in its purest form. George had no intention of socializing the means of production, just what he defined as "land", or better described as natural resources. Nor did he have any intention of abolishing commodity, or really anything you just mentioned.

Literally didn't cross my mind that Singapore built on Georgist ideas.

@abyssstrider2547

2 жыл бұрын

And it's one of those rapidly developing countries.

@JohnnoNonno

2 жыл бұрын

Too bad they forgot to mention that it's also one of the most expensive countries rent-wise, and people end up living in situations that verge on madness (like 4 people sharing the space of a corridor to live)

@MixMasterJ1221

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnnoNonno this probably isn’t the fault of Georgism, moreso the fact that it is the most densely populated country in the world, with so little land to live in, and so many people to house.

@d3nza482

2 жыл бұрын

@@MixMasterJ1221 That's like saying the fact that prayer doesn't cure cancer "probably" isn't the fault of ReligionTM. The whole point of the system is supposed to be provision of a relief to the people. The part where the maker of the video argues that sleeping in the street "well, actually" isn't homelessness because those people only act as if they are homeless cause they can't afford to go home - that's some priceless confirmation bias. You know, like praying the cancer away. "I'm not homeless. I just can't afford to live in a home so I sleep in the street. I'm long-term temporarily inconvenienced homeowner/renter who just happens to sleep in the street." Failure of the Georgist idea is in its close-mindedness. It is based on the idea of only burden to humanity being the tax burden - i.e. it has a vision of a government solely as the oppressor. NOT as a service that people provide of themselves, to themselves and for themselves in order to achieve collectively that which they could never achieve individually. Georgist government is either monarchist or feudalistic. It is not a democracy. Also, it is an agrarian society. The guy died before wide use or even invention of cars, airplanes, recorded music, electric lights... let alone computers, internet, modern medicine, space flight or outsourcing. Any of which completely breaks his vision of society of humans as farmers first. And let's not even start with its failure to even grasp the concept of capital. Or godforbid, intellectual property. Hint: Georgism can't even explain let alone reduce the wealth of ANY billionaire or a modern corporation - but it would still continually burden a homeowner. Hell, if told about wealths of Gates, Bezos or Musk or Disney, Apple or even Walmart, Henry George would probably imagine them all to be horse breeders.

@lorefox201

2 жыл бұрын

@@d3nza482 prayer has reliably cured cancer, more often than """scientific medicine"""

I work at an Amazon distribution center. I'm not exaggerating when I say this place is enormous, you could basically fit an entire town inside of it and it's only one of many across the US and possibly the world. So to me the genius in this idea is self-evident. Amazon can get around paying taxes on it's revenue through legal tomfoolery but it can't get around the fact that it owns a tremendous amount of land, it couldn't avoid paying taxes.

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah this LVT seems impossible to dodge without some hugely illegal bribery

@duuet5614

2 жыл бұрын

Would renting be illegal

@josephedmond3723

2 жыл бұрын

@@duuet5614 I don't see why it would be. However the cost associated with owning property means owners are incentivized to bring in tenets to help cover the cost, which means fewer vacancies and lower rent. At least in theory.

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

@@duuet5614 I don't think so

@redmonkey4351

2 жыл бұрын

@@duuet5614 No. What would happen is that the cost of the land tax would be passed from the landlord to the renter through higher rents, as rather than them using the land themselves, the renter is using the property and reaping the benefits.

The amount of genius ideas that Americans have had but were only implemented outside the US is maddening, Americans aren't stupid just our government

@brandonrobinson3829

2 жыл бұрын

Nah we are pretty stupid and I'm american.

@seneca983

2 жыл бұрын

I think the US actually does this better than several European countries as the US has decently high property taxes. Now, property taxes aren't an ideal Georgist taxes because they tax both the land *and* the structures and other improvements on it. However, it still at least captures a portion of the land rent too so I think it's an improvement on just having very low property taxes (as is the case at least here in Finland). A good step would likely be to separate the property tax on land and structures and tax the former at a higher rate.

@REBELBIRDDRONEOPS

2 жыл бұрын

Governments are idiotic all around the world. I'm from Spain and good lord XD what humanity has come to

@CoolMan-ig1ol

2 жыл бұрын

Well, US has a large population and federal govt has too much power. So, policy X may be popular in say Florida but you have to convince all the other states to do that. In Europe, the same policy X maybe popular in France, and they might implement it pretty quick. After seeing the policy X being implemented good in France other countries will be easily convinced. Pre-Civil war States rights were higher and individual states could ban slavery, which is a good idea and other states will follow except a few down south.

@AmphibiansAreCool

2 жыл бұрын

America doesn't work, and everybody is laughing uncomfortably at how they are slowly destroying themselves and the world, with stupidity and greed

So basically we just all collectively become the landlord

@cornercutproductions6440

3 жыл бұрын

no the land value would come from the people rather than individual land lords

@taoliu3949

3 жыл бұрын

Basically yes. Because land cannot be created and is provided by nature, it should belong to all. If someone wants to control the land and prevent others from accessing it, they should be required to compensate the community. This concept can be applied to all natural resources. Mineral rights, Alaskas Oil revenues, etc are all forms of a Land Value Tax.

@VerneDoran

2 жыл бұрын

Not really. someone has to put in the capital for building maintenance and infrastructure. It's just now they have to pay more property tax, which might limit supply raising rent.

@lucastonoli3256

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine how many more wannabe-communist would kill themselves, lol.

@HelloTher1313

2 жыл бұрын

@@lucastonoli3256 what?

Most governments oppose this because the government officials themselves own insane amounts of land, therefore they would be contradicting themselves.

@fluidthought42

2 жыл бұрын

Just look at Pelosi, who is a massive landlord. Not just a problem of Democratic hypocrisy, as figures on the right like Sean Hannity are also landlords. Hell Trump is a landlord, he's THE landlord.

@adriano.santana

2 жыл бұрын

They'd just change the laws here and there slowly till some people become more favored than others because (examples) "they're more productive and benefit the people more (even if they really aren't or quite the opposite)", "they produce more of this commodity and this is highly valued right now, so they deserve more", "they're from the military/politics/whatever and contributed to society greatly, they deserve more" and suddenly there you have it. The state always ends up governing for itself, in the end. Gets worse the more power it gets. The government isn't penalized for its bad decisions.

@fluidthought42

2 жыл бұрын

@@adriano.santana In which case engagement with the government should be the appropriate response, not advocating for an unworkable anarchist system.

@biggerisbetta

2 жыл бұрын

Australia moment 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺

@sebastienholmes548

2 жыл бұрын

So you're telling me this will screw over politicians? Sign me up.

- It's a solid philosophy positioned between 'left' and 'right', purposing a very clear economic system. - It's one of the few 'fringe' populist ideologies that have actually been implemented. - It's been endorsed by all types of economists, and has been echoed by major political figures. - It's the idea of a man who has experienced poverty, and ran for office putting working people as a priority. I'm in.

@nienke7713

2 жыл бұрын

how is it populist? populism is typically defined by creating some (imagined) division between a group they consider to be "the people" and some other group (often "elites" but in some cases also things like "foreigners"), which I don't really see here. Another common aspect of populism is the use of emotion, especially fear and anger, to sway people, which, again, doesn't seem to be the case here.

@milesm.69

2 жыл бұрын

@@nienke7713 I understand some people define populist as political rhetoric that loosely defines an 'establishment' or 'the elite' vs 'the people'. What I was really getting at there was that Henry George as his philosophy was really into promoting the interests of working folks by talking about fighting land speculators and reducing inequality. It seems that populism can either be defined as simply a tune of political messaging that can rile up a crowd, or it can cover a range of ideas that prioritize the interests of everyday people. I use the term in that more positive way.

@user-mx4oq5ww5b

2 жыл бұрын

@@nienke7713 You mistake populism with demagogy. The former is working to implement policies which are popular among most of the people.The latter is what you described. Indeed, they share a common border, that`s why they are easily mistaken

@nienke7713

2 жыл бұрын

@@milesm.69 to me, it sounds like pretty much anything that proposes an alternative to the current situation is populist in that case, which I don't think is a particularly useful definition.

@nienke7713

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-mx4oq5ww5b In Dutch we use populist for that,although the populists (or demagogues as you call them) love to try and claim that their populism is a good thing and means they're supposedly there for the people and/or going against the "leftist elite" (mind you, we have only had right wing and mixed governments since WWII, we haven't had any all-left-wing governments)

You know, for a while after it was published, "Progress and Poverty" (George's magnum opus) was actually the second most sold book in the US, just after the Bible. Strange he's really barely known outside the economics profession considering how popular he was in his time. Hell, even within the economics field he's often glossed over, if not omitted, from economic theory classes. As an economics student, I was really surprised to find out how influential he is considering he hasn't been mentioned once in any of my classes.

@Someone-dt1ns

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't the most sold book in the US Common Sense by Thomas Paine?

@neoyuls

2 жыл бұрын

@@Someone-dt1ns yeah maybe but that's now, P&P was the second most sold book in the 1870-1890S

@wildfire9280

Жыл бұрын

Knowing how influential landowners are in politics… hear me out… it’s not *impossible* they may have pulled some strings to reduce the consideration of land. Just a suggestion though. (No really, I’ve only got conjecture and that was from another person.)

@MugroofAmeen

Жыл бұрын

@@wildfire9280 Considering Car and Oil industry's *massive* involvement & lobbying in US politics, it's not a stretch to say the same about landlords.

@dg1178

11 ай бұрын

@@wildfire9280 I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Spot on.

This comment section is a treat, all sorts of people naming their crazy niche beliefs and different walks of life yet they can't disagree on how neat georgism sounds

@Rhaegar19

2 жыл бұрын

Except the landlords. Crickets from them.

@kashay4415

2 жыл бұрын

It's somewhat neat, and only having land taxes instead of income, capital gains and VAT taxes is definetly better than what we have now, but the landlords / miners don't just charge for nothing. Sure, they own the property, but they are the ones who build the buildings, the isolation, the elevators etc... or in case of mining the company provides the geologist and drills for exploring the property and finding ore, the vehicles and equipment to economically extract the ore, the mills to grind it, the staff to maintain it etc... Taxing those who extract a lot of value out of these spaces most is not really efficient. To the extent that you want to maintain a small government that is only in charge of protecting safety (ie military etc.) and not interfering in the economy an apportioned sales tax is probably better. Common people also immidiatly notice these taxes being raised so that will put more restraint on the government (which is why The Constitutions says all direct taxes have to be apportioned, but who follows the constitution these days anyway?)

@Rhaegar19

2 жыл бұрын

@@kashay4415 I think you're not seeing the full implications. Compared to a property tax, the LVT would not really affect people who are using their land productively. The more value you extract from it, the smaller percentage the LVT becomes. This encourages development and resource extraction (which is untaxed), and discourages sitting on land because you think it will grow in value. We want to discourage land hoarding and encourage trade, so we should tax the first and not tax the latter. Furthermore, looking at it from a small-government perspective, the government has every right to get involved in land management. After all, it's their military that defends it, and their police that enforce property rights. Property rights wouldn't even exist without the government, it would just be a free-for-all and warlords would "own" everything. On the other hand, a consensual exchange of goods between two people isn't the government's business.

@kashay4415

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rhaegar19 Land hoarding is not a problem in free market captialism and is largly a result of low interest rates because the central bank is trying to prop up the financial system. No Fed, no insane speculation in housing. I just think an apportioned sales tax is advantageous in the way that I can't be raised without common people not noticing. (Which is the Problem we have now; everyone is in favor of taxing the rich etc... because its easy and supposedly doesn't do damage to the economy which it ofc does. If this level spending would have to be paid for by apportioned taxes and not via inflation there is no way in hell the public would let this continue.)

@Phil9874

2 жыл бұрын

I think we can all agree big landlords are basically parasites. I don't personally see why someone should be able to wall off land unless they are living on it.

Marx: "Seize the means of production!" Georg: "Get dat dirt, yo!"

@razvanefros411

2 жыл бұрын

good one, have a like

@kohukesfr3840

2 жыл бұрын

Lmao, true. Have a like m8

@Γι3ργ0ς

Жыл бұрын

Why not both.

@Johnnysmithy24

11 ай бұрын

@@Γι3ργ0ςL

@Γι3ργ0ς

11 ай бұрын

@@Johnnysmithy24 why?

Thank you for knowing the difference between "liberal" and "leftist," it truly is such a breath of fresh air. Very informative video

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

I think conflating the two terms is almost exclusively an american thing

@user-hc7qb6zy5x

2 жыл бұрын

@@miguelpereira9859 Yep. I guess the Americans start to panic when faced with some other term than "Left" or "Right"

@joriankell1983

2 жыл бұрын

Liberalism is the path to socialism

@joriankell1983

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-hc7qb6zy5x only the brainlets

@dirtiscake4701

2 жыл бұрын

the darn liberal put master chief in the soder ☹️☹️☹️

Georgism is technically compatable with Libertarianism,Liberalism,Syndicalism,Social Democracy,Conservatism and even Fascism. That's the great thing about it.

@understorymainchannel8326

3 жыл бұрын

As a social liberal it's based

@redtexan7053

2 жыл бұрын

Literally nothing is compatible with Fascism. Not even Fascism.

@andreasfiltenborg4952

2 жыл бұрын

@@redtexan7053 former fascist here. What do you mean?

@redtexan7053

2 жыл бұрын

@barnoftheyard Fascism is, to quote its most famous analysis, a beehive of contradictions. No matter what it’s claims in the moment are, and no matter what anyone from Gentile to Mason have written on the subject, the end goal of Fascism is always to create and to conserve power, and it will do whatever it has to towards those ends. Aside from simple bigotry, there is no principle it will not betray, no promise it will not walk back on. Fascism cannot be compatible with anything else, because Fascism must destroy all else to maintain itself. Fascism is not even compatible with itself, because in the end, it will always resort to eating its own. If it doesn’t get itself killed picking a fight with its neighbors, Fascism will always be its own undoing.

@Talinoth

2 жыл бұрын

@@redtexan7053 Fascists are of course not very pleasant people, but you're missing the point. You said it yourself - the goal of fascism is to create and conserve power. Ergo, *it is in fact compatible with a *VERY LARGE range of different policy measures*. In fact, the policy choices of fascists can be summed up as "Whatever works!" (to help them gain more power, that is. Fascism doesn't always destroy other ideologies and methods, it also uses them towards it's own ends. *Fascists are very adaptable people*, and they will do, say, and believe whatever they have to in order to win. They are authoritarian *pragmatists*, emphasis on the latter. They are compatible with both deeply left and right wing ideas, as Hitler himself was. He and the National Socialist Party is most often put in the authoritarian center part of the quadrant for this reason. This kind of "the ends justify the means", "might makes right" and general focus on total state control combined with ideological flexibility/spinelessness... only modern China really comes close to embodying it today.

Extraordinarily, unfathomably based.

@tutus3dall-starsmultiversa646

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. It is the best way of based.

At first I thought "huh, why does he make it sound like some crazy idea? seems logical". Then I remembered that I live in a country with a land tax implemented (Estonia) and that's why it doesn't sound crazy to me.

@newstartyt3700

2 жыл бұрын

I dont live in a country with a land value tax and yet it still doesnt sound crazy

@PhrozenFox

Жыл бұрын

It sounds absolutely fucking bonkers to me because it makes perfect and total sense. When something isn't absurd or poorly thought out, that's when I become skeptical.

For only having a 7th grade education Henry George really was an impressive man. He actually convinced his own father that he would get a better education through reading on his own, having a private tutor come through every so often, and attending lectures occasionally. He left home at 14 to work on a ship, circumnavigating the world twice before finally settling in San Francisco and eloping with a 17 year old Australian orphan who was living with her wealthy industrialist uncle. Man ran his own newspaper for a time, was the head honcho at the San Francisco chronicle, and periodically fell on times hard enough that he actually considered robbing people in the street. He had four children, remained happily married till his death at 56, and in his time was known as the most famous man in America behind Thomas Edison, and Mark Twain. He more or less kicked off the progressive era which gave us such leaders as Teddy Roosevelt. Truly an American genius, and it’s a crying shame that he is so unknown today for his massive contributions to society, and civilization as a whole.

@Bell_plejdo568p

Жыл бұрын

Teddy Roosevelt isn't a good person he was imperialist, and him busitng monoplies is a myth

@RedBeeZ6983

11 ай бұрын

@@Bell_plejdo568p Source?

@samuelphanoto4565

10 ай бұрын

sure while teddy kick start american foreign influence by subjugate phillipines, cuba and presssuring mexico. you cannot deny he implement a lot of social standart reforms, built somekind of heathcare and further industrializing america by using foreign resouce. hw even start a national oark and under his goverment national park is a thing.

@Sunrah

5 ай бұрын

​@@Bell_plejdo568p still waiting on that source

@b.j.880

3 ай бұрын

​@@RedBeeZ6983 He did bust monopolies so i don't know what brother up here is talking about, but what is true is that he furthered the American Empire greatly during his tenure. He insigated and financed a Civil War in Colombia to weaken the central state and take Panama using proxy rebels. Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua actually INVADED Colombia and sided with the liberals to take down the American-backed conservatives and defend Panama, to which Teddy doubled down and backed coups in Nicaragua and Venezuela and yet another Civil War in Ecuador. If a president today did all that shit today he'd never hear the end of it and be probably impeached.

I laughed at the "paras- uhhh landlords" bit thanks

I find it shocking how there are so many great ideas that almost everybody would agree are fair and would help society prosper yet the majority of people still can’t rap their minds around anything other than capitalism, socialism, and communism

@KarlSnarks

2 жыл бұрын

And most Americans don't even understand what those labels mean, and think capitalism=free market and communism=big government.

@J_Stronsky

2 жыл бұрын

@@KarlSnarks True. As pointed out in the video, Georgism isn't an alternative to capitalism - it's simply a form of wealth redistribution - the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. As a non-American, social-democrat I find it endlessly annoying to hear so many ideas dismissed as Communist.

@KarlSnarks

2 жыл бұрын

@@J_Stronsky Yeah, many Americans (and even some online right-wingers from my own EU country) seem to dismiss every form of strong redistributive policies as Communism. Henry George's criticism of land ownership is indeed based on Socialist thought (more specifically, by Mutualist P.J. Proudhon, who's famous for the phrase "private property is theft") but he combines it with an overall Classical Liberal worldview.

@LinasVepstas

2 жыл бұрын

Surprisingly, some people can't wrap their mind around the idea that when they retire, they're going to have to pay hefty property taxes from a shrinking bank account! Perhaps 65 is wayyy too young to retire? There's plenty of work for 80-year-olds, if they want it. McD's is hiring, I hear.

@KarlSnarks

2 жыл бұрын

@@LinasVepstas If we're gonna go for Georgist property tax, it's entirely fair to exclude property that is directly used by the owner to live on. The biggest problem Georgists seem to have is with profiting from property (or natural resources) that could be used by the community, or leaving the property unused.

Great video. I love how you mention how so many different people, ranging from anarcho socialists to conservative capitalists come together to form a “centrist” ideology. That’s the most appealing aspect of georgism to me, how you can see it’s benefits no matter what your beliefs are.

@jakewoods6721

4 жыл бұрын

Abrahem Samander But anarcho socialism isn't a real ideology, socialism is left wing and anarchism is right wing. I might as well claim to be a libertarain communist or a islamic christain.

@PsychicAlchemy

4 жыл бұрын

@@jakewoods6721 I think the left-right paradigm is falling apart entirely. Even the political compass with a vertical axis is a severely limited model. It's better to think in terms of the ideas themselves, not a narrow axis of ideology.

@professionalmemeenthusiast2117

4 жыл бұрын

@@jakewoods6721 Anarchism is traditionally a left wing ideology. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much the only right wing version of anarchism.

@theklorg305

4 жыл бұрын

[Except if your anti-land value tax, that is :]

@antifaschistischeaktion8147

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakewoods6721 1. anarchism is left-wing because its inherently anti-capitalistic. 2. communist practically have the same end goal of anarchist.

"what do you mean the earths core is not mine?, Its literally underneath my property"

Everyone I try and introduce Georgism to, I send them this video it is so great!

I like land tax a lot as it solves the problem of landlords buying up every square inch of land to rent out to people but still allows for property rights to exist aswell.

@blocksarefun1

2 жыл бұрын

Amazon will just buy cheap land in the middle of no where and own alot

@bladonski

2 жыл бұрын

@@blocksarefun1 land tax is progressive if they own a lot they pay a ton in taxes if they don't qualify for tax deductions (like farmers would be)

@happy_thinking

2 жыл бұрын

@@bladonski Even if no deductions existed. The whole point of the idea is for people to use land efficiently. So if Amazon owned land in the middle of nowhere which nobody wants other land on good location would be free and as land gets developed you will have to pay more taxes so this only works in the short term.

@rhyzvanic3660

2 жыл бұрын

@@blocksarefun1 And if Amazon makes use of land that no one else is using, and that no one can make use of, that means the previous land that many different people want and would competitively try to own would be freed up. I see that as a win.

@juanlu3958

2 жыл бұрын

@@leeroyjenkins0 Stupid.Amazon wont makes the company in the middle of nowhere if they can they can do it now already.It cost more than bloody tax if you just the bloody company in the middle of nowhere

As a georgist, I find this video mostly accurate and frankly amazing. Georgism is the only economic system, as far as I know, that allows to unite liberty with equality without having to sacrifice anything of both. Is such a good idea that it has satisfied many liberals, social democrats, libertarians, democratic socialists, conservatives, alike. I saw a lot of comments in which people confuse the value of buildings, and other land improvements, with the value of the land itself. Georgism proposes taxation on the rental value of *land* only, without including the value of buildings or any other human-made improvement within the property; the author of the video explicitly said this in the minute 3:38 to be exact. So, why in this video the land value is sometimes represented by diamonds coming out from buildings? Because almost all of the value of the land in urban areas is determined by its location, and please let me explain. Land is similar to a sponge; most of its value is frequently determined by the value of other things around, like if it "absorbs" the value of the surrounding community. A real estate in the middle of the wilderness is worth very little compared to a real estate located in the center of a big city like New York, both real estates being identical in all other respects. Simply because of location, the second real estate is worth much more and has much higher average price per square area unit. The fact of being *near* certain things like education, jobs, culture, entertainment, infrastructure, business opportunities, population, specialization and so on, provides a lot of value to a piece of urban land even if empty or underdeveloped. Therefore, simply by its own existence, even a piece of empty land becomes more and more valuable as the surrounding community becomes more and more populated and developed over time. In the case you didn't know before, the word "land" in economics jargon refers to all natural resources in general. The most important natural resource is space itself, and specially space in urban areas, because it "absorbs" its value from the degree of potential productivity in its given location; this is part of the *law* *of* *rent* and its first and most basic formulation was postulated by David Ricardo, the famous classical political economist you may have heard of. The idea is pretty abstract and hard to represent in a graphical way, cannot blame the author of the video for causing said confusion in the comment section. Finally, I would also like to make it clear that all land is taxed, not just unimproved land. All land is taxed, but, in the case that the property has improvements such as buildings, the value of the improvements is not included in the tax. We could say that the improvements are "discounted" from the rental value of the property, when collecting the tax. William Vickrey, John Dewey, Winston Churchill, Milton Friedman, Albert Einstein, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther King Junior, Joseph Stiglitz, Blas Infante, Sun Yat-Sen, Bertrand Russell, José Martí, Henry Ford, Franz Oppenheimer, Rutherford Hayes, Mark Twain, Frank Chodorov, Max Hirsch, George Bernard Shaw, Wesley Cook who is also known as Mumia Abu-Jamal, Albert Jay Nock, Silvio Gesell and Leon Walras supported georgism directly or indirectly. The point of Henry George is so clear that it can persuade very different kinds of people; it can bring us together towards a common goal. Thanks for reading!

@Max-nt5zs

2 жыл бұрын

So then what incentive do people have to continue developing land? If you don’t actually own the land why should you develop things like housing on it when you can’t potentially sell it in the future or even rent it out? Also what incentive do banks have to loan money for development of land since it’s such high risk to build on land owned by the government because it could be taken away and banks wouldn’t be able to collect collateral of a home for example meaning that there wouldn’t even be any capital for development. The example of Singapore is extremely dicey as A. It’s a tiny country B. The authoritarian government can make up whatever statistics it wants. Then your example of Taiwan had very little detail. Believe it our not this is actually how it works on American Indian reservations. The land is owned by the federal government and people have no incentive to build on it because it could just be taken away. Banks also have no reason to loan for development for the same reason.

@maclinkastex3059

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Max-nt5zs 1- Georgism does not collectivize land, which remains on private hands just the same way it is today. The government cannot simply "take away" your land; property rules in georgism are exactly the same as they are right now, in which private owners have the right to own their land in perpetuity (as long as they pay taxes). The only thing georgism changes is the taxation system, not property rules. But even if property rules were changed, and all land becomes public by law, that does not necessarily means there would be no incentive to develop the land. More than 90% of Singapore's land is public property, and is a city full of skyscrapers; you can doubt government's statistics if you want, but you cannot doubt the buildings you can see anywhere in Singapore with your own eyes. Singapore has a system in which the government leases public land to private individuals for a period of 99 years, in which property rights functions exactly the same as any other country, with the sole difference that in the 99th year the contract needs to be renovated. This is somewhat similar to a private contract between landlords and tenants, in "normal" countries like the United States. Rental revenue (from public land leases) gives Singapore's government the advantage of having extremely low taxes on productive activities, because high taxes are no longer necessary for collecting enough public revenue. We don't even need to talk about Singapore to show that renting a piece of land doesn't necessarily eliminate the incentive to improve it; all over the world, in almost every country, there are plenty of businesses, farms, homes, and structures, that are built upon, maintained, expanded, and used for productive purposes, by someone who is renting that piece of land from a private landlord. In the case of Singapore the government itself is the main landlord, but the functioning is not very different from renting a piece of land from a private individual. The main difference is that, when the government is the landlord, rental revenue can be used for common purposes and invested in public services; in contrast, if the rent goes to a private landlord, he most likely will use the money to satisfy his particular desires. 2- Georgism does not "tax away" the incentive to develop the land; georgist taxation systems are precisely designed with the explicit purpose of incentivizing productive activities as much as possible, by leaving production almost completely untaxed. As I said early, the value of the improvements *is not taxed* by the land value tax (LVT). The rental value of the buildings (and any other improvement) is not taxed, *precisely* in order to *not* disincentivize the development of the land. Only the value of the land itself is taxed, exactly as it would be if it were completely unimproved; this is what economists call the *unimproved* rental value of land, and is the main thing georgists want to tax. This will incentivize landowners to develop their land as much as possible, because only the rental value of the improvements will remain untaxed. Land itself (understood as "territory" or space) cannot be produced by humans, it is a natural resource. As such, its quantity is fixed by nature, and its supply is perfectly inelastic. The main consequence (of land economic inelasticity) is that, unlike the taxation of human-made products and services, LVT does not cause economic deadweight loss, nor changes in rental prices, nor changes in the quantity of land. So, at least according to microeconomic theory, land rental prices cannot increase as a response to land value taxation. The burden of LVT will fall mostly at the expense of unproductive landowners who own empty or very undeveloped land in valuable (and often very populated) areas. Many of these landowners buy land for purely speculative purposes; which is to say, those who buy land when it is cheap to simply sell it in the future, when it is more expensive due to the development of the *surroundings* (without developing their own land in the process). 3- I'm working with other georgists on a FAQ specifically designed for this video, and I will edit my original comment when said FAQ is done. I will probably be updating it from time to time, to give answer to many more misconceptions and misrepresentation about georgism.

@Gilberto90

2 жыл бұрын

@@Max-nt5zs In England (I am not too familiar with Scottish property law), most 'homeowners' don't own the land on which their house is built, but have a long term lease, or ground rent, that they pay in order to assume most of the property rights of the actual land owner, including the right to transfer, or convey, the lease and its obligations to another party. The homeowner in this case literally owns the 'bricks and motar' of the property but the actual title to the land is not theirs - they are a tennant. The point being, that even if you don't lit own land, there are still incentives to make improvements to that land. In this case, the homeowner would not be responsible for paying a land value tax as they are not the owners of the land. Because the tax is levied on the unimproved (i.e. without any building or work having being done) value of the land, there is no incentive for a landowner to be opposed to improvements being made. In fact there is every incentive for a landowner to dispose of his property rights to the tennant; in order to transfer the tax liability to the party that derives the most enjoyment from the land. This would drastically democratise actual land ownership and discourage rent seeking from land owners.

@alexmay7250

2 жыл бұрын

hmmm, that's really interesting. I worry about the repercussions of the efficiency of production being a result of land size. It seems like there would be a direct incentive to produce as much as you can based on your land size, encouraging bad stewardship practices, like non-varied monocrops and dense animal farms.

@LinasVepstas

2 жыл бұрын

Let me rephrase the last post in personal terms: my current combined property tax plus health insurance (averaged over the last 5-10 years) exceeds the pre-tax salary of pretty much every blue-collar job, and exceeds the (pre-income-tax) salary of most white-collar jobs. This is not sustainable, unless you are either very well off due to stock market investments, or are a landlord with five or more income-producing properties. Employment alone is not enough to pay for cost-of-living. This is a problem, and property tax is especially burdensome for anyone retired. It's often joked that young people can't afford housing. Well, surprise! Old people can't either.

George: "I believe we should implement a land tax-wait what are you doing?" US Government: "Property tax? Property tax. Add property tax on top of income tax. Actually, add a poll tax as well! Yes, also a sales tax...and a payroll tax and an excise tax. By god, if there's a dollar on this Earth I want 50 cents!"

@sovietunion7643

2 жыл бұрын

wait till you hear about california

@The_Crimson_Fucker

2 жыл бұрын

@@sovietunion7643 Cali govt. be like: "Let's build an entire state where you can't get anywhere unless you own a car- then tax the ever living shit out of everything with an engine".

@sovietunion7643

2 жыл бұрын

@@The_Crimson_Fucker i love california as a whole, it has nice mountains and the rural community is generally less crazy compared to the south and such, plus we got a lot of cool things close by like the big cities, tahoe lake, the northern CA redwoods, and the coast. however, the taxes and house prices are the one thing that suck. im from norcal so take that in mind i guess lol

@The_Crimson_Fucker

2 жыл бұрын

@@sovietunion7643 California is a beautiful place, it's a shame it's run by _the least deserving crowd of people the world has ever known_ . And it's going to stay that way because Californians are fundamentally incapable of understanding that _they did this_ , so instead of correcting course they're going to leave and do the same thing in other states, making them worse and blaming other people for it.

@star_duck

2 жыл бұрын

The goverment owns half of the money they create

Fun fact, George comes from the Greek Georgos, which means farmer/land worker.

@SpoopySquid

5 ай бұрын

The more you know 🌈⭐️

As a syndicalist, this is a compromise I would be willing to make with capitalists.

@Mr539forgotten

4 жыл бұрын

As an AnCap, I'm willing to compromise with literally anyone who is willing to not engage in violence, rulership or use of force. But, yannow, literally a black and yellow satan.

@bossbullyboy195

4 жыл бұрын

As an ex Syndicalist, I cant agree, this would funnel all land ownership to the state as private infrustructure upkeep would be a deficit.

@PsychicAlchemy

4 жыл бұрын

@@bossbullyboy195 The tax can be applied in many ways, such as through county-level auctions. Ideally the mechanics would be market-based.

@Ryzeer2

4 жыл бұрын

As a Minarchist, (Though really Geolibertarian now, but I still want minimum gov) I don't just see this as a compromise between LibRight and LibLeft, but the most just and fair way to run society. It's such a beautiful combination of individual freedom and collective justice and every time I really think about LVT I see just how well it beautifully patches up any cracks in the free market, I'm just saddened how unknown it is in the modern day. I hope word of Georgism can get out in the open more and more so that we can at the very least find a middle ground to work from, if not find the prosperous society both sides desire.

@jonathanbuckley1031

4 жыл бұрын

It is time for Lib unity

I’m a pretty damn hard conservative and I find almost nothing objectionable with this; the land and its fruits belong to the people, it was gifted to us all. I see it as a far fairer alternative to socialism, and builds stronger social solidarity than pure capitalism. I wish to see some kind of common ground with all those who try to bring justice to our economy. 💚💛

@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba

4 жыл бұрын

There is nothing fairer than a capitalist system, to oppose that in the name of trying to control the economy was precisely what led to the exact opposite of what you claim.

@sokolov22

3 жыл бұрын

@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba Land Value Tax is compatible with Capitalism.

@metalmaster76

3 жыл бұрын

you own your house. it's your house and fully paid off. and you live in it. Now imagine you have no job. > you have to pay your land tax anyway. Not so bad right? Surely you have some savings you can cover it. Imagine now, if you brought your house 50 years ago. you made a smart choice, brought a nice family home with a back yard in a good neighbourhood, now fast forward 50 years to present day, population has risen, economy has grown massively, and the value of the house has gone from being a few thousand bucks, to million and millions of dollars. on paper, you're a millionaire. you never had a crazy high paying job, you just worked like a normal guy, and paid off your house like a good bloke - but through the power of free markets, your property is now worth multiple millions of dollars. Now your land tax will be a very large amount of money, and you can't afford it.

@sokolov22

3 жыл бұрын

Whatever the economic structure is, having no job and no savings is a recipe for disaster. The reality is that the land value doesn't just suddenly rise 50 years in the future, it happens regularly, constantly, and therefore you aren't suddenly homeless with no idea how it happened. You know. In either case, in the specific scenario you outlined, one of the ideas behind Georgist thought is that in that scenario, you are clearly not using the land efficiently. But you can still sell because it's still private property, and become very wealthy in the scenario. Note also that even without land value tax as the primary way tax revenue is generated, this type of happens already. We just usually do it by force (eminent domain laws) rather than free market forces.

@alexc7367

3 жыл бұрын

​@@metalmaster76 the tax rate would be different on residential houses and added value properties, any asset that can't be maintained is going to be an issue anyway, then again, he doesn't pay many/any other taxes now so he can afford to pay more on this one or even take a renter in his highly desirable home or sell it for a huuuuuge profit and buy 3 houses down the road.

5:54 Just one little misconception about Georgism by the Republic of China. It only saw implementation in Taiwan post-1950 following the end of the Chinese Civil War (when the Kuomintang fled to Taiwan). Previously to 1949, it was under the control of the Japanese Empire from 1895 (following the Treaty of Shimoneski) until 1945 (following the end of World War II). The Kuomintang between 1912 (following its formation after the Xinhai Revolution) until 1928, it was a Nationalist party and one of many factions in a divided China until the Kuomintang unified the nation in 1928 (known as the Northern Expedition) from 1928 to 1949, the Kuomintang was the Chinese government on mainland China until the Communists won the Civil War. I do not know for sure whether or not the land value tax was properly or formally implemented when the Kuomintang controlled mainland China, but it definitely did post Civil War times and still does to this day (the theory of Georgism being implemented was recorded to be proposed in 1924 by Sun Yat-sen, who led the Kuomintang, in his lectures for the Three Principles of the People).

@redryan20000

2 жыл бұрын

I think this is the same misconception with Singapore. Much if not most of its land is privately held now. It simply jump-started the process generations ago by state-ownership of the land.

@wildfire9280

Жыл бұрын

Sun Yat-sen cannot be even more based- ohmygod

@GeneralLiuofBoston1911

8 ай бұрын

​@@wildfire9280There was a reconstruction plan that Sun Yat-sen wrote about. The piece included a hydropower dam where the modern Three Gorges Dam now exists, as well as the dream for tens of thousands of kilometers of railroad tracks and highways to connect the nation.

Georgism is fucking AWESOME. Henry George will go down as a hero of the world

@peanutsveryepicchannel8699

5 ай бұрын

karl marx is so much cooler

Georgists: skyscraper, I love you

@Rilkir

3 жыл бұрын

Holy based Underworld fan.

@GeneralArmorus

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rilkir hehe wouldnt call myself a fan but that album is in my 99th percentile of albums heard

@minhducnguyen674

3 жыл бұрын

That's how it should work. Skyscrapers mean the lad has been intensively invested wich allow it's full potential use. Better than having tons of empty land that are not circulating in the market or generating capital

@cement_eater

3 ай бұрын

RAHHHHHH🔰🦅🔰🦅WHAT THE FUCK IS A ZONING LAW

I’m a mutualist but georgism sounds pretty cool also

@guyoflife

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like an excuse for capitalist domination. Perhaps even worse. Poorer people can get kicked off the land they're using by someone richer during the yearly bid. Doesn't allow communal living. Encourages buying votes. Mutualism seems so much more reasonable though I'm a state socialist/communist.

@maclinkastex3059

3 жыл бұрын

​@@guyoflife Compensation for land ownership, as described in Progress & Poverty, is *not* estimated by yearly bids. I already explained this to you in another comment; so, please, stop spreading misinformation. Land values are estimated through *assessments* using professional methods for that purpose, on a yearly basis. Is impossible for a rich guy to "bid you out" from your property, nor is possible for him to buy your vote in that way. In Henry George's proposal for estimating ground rents there are no bids at all! And where the hell did you hear that communal life is not allowed? Private individuals, as well as communities, are fully allowed to own land; they only have to pay the land value tax.

@agus.lorenzo

3 жыл бұрын

I’m a mutualist too! And I find this really good approach to solve many issues that are hard to resolve using only mutualism. It’s like a quick easy ticket into equality and progress.

@Stoicsaiyan

2 жыл бұрын

@@maclinkastex3059 I’m interested in Georgism and I really want to know more about it I’m mostly a capitalist but I want to learn more about this interesting economic ideology, and I have many questions does goergism allow free market economy and private property ect or is it all from natural resources and land. Because I did research on it and it was talking about free real estate

@Stoicsaiyan

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-cf6fo6bj1u oh okay because i did research on it and it’s pretty capitalist according to goergists

Technically... in Georgism, air IS a part of "land", land more refers to territory and natural resources. So Air is "land" in the economic sense. This is important because if people pollute the air, they are damaging our property which means they owe us for damages.

@lazergurka-smerlin6561

2 жыл бұрын

So hold on, a carbon tax would be automatically made because air is a natural resource? That's quite nice!

@lazergurka-smerlin6561

2 жыл бұрын

@Stella Hoenheim Well you could measure the economic costs that's caused by polluted air. I.e: disease, natural disasters, semi-permanent ecological damage. Those in turn can cause damage to people and property. Of course there's less material damages but that's somethings to measure

@havabighed

2 жыл бұрын

@Stella Hoenheim you look at various emission types and their greenhouse gas potential. Then you examine industries that produce these things. Then you charge them a fee for emitting them. So CO2 can be charged fees, Methane would charge fees for damages to the air(but it would be at a higher rate per cubic meter), nitrous oxide would be even more potent so you would charge even more for for N2O emissions, etcetera.

@Cecilia-ky3uw

2 жыл бұрын

@@lazergurka-smerlin6561 Lazergurka, we can also start putting a value in space, let us start taxing space

@thejatangamer_1877

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cecilia-ky3uw well we can't really damage space too much,So we can't tax space. A tax should only be placed if the person is causing harm or inconvenience to everyone else. Air tax makes sense, because people are dying of air pollution and it is destroying everyone's common heritage.

This video was the first thing that piqued my interest in Georgism and the land value tax. I was just coming from a whole bunch of Not Just Bikes videos and getting UrbanPilled pretty good and Georgism seemed to fit that paradigm pretty well, but I still had my doubts about it. After doing a little more digging (and watching Mr. Beat's video) I became more intrigued. I wasn't totally convinced, but I also couldn't stop thinking about it. So I finally decided to just take the plunge. I checked it out from my campus library, I read Progress and Poverty, and ho boy did I get LandPilled *_hard._* This video opened my mouth and then The Man himself Henry George with his Gospel shoved that horse-sized LandPill down my throat faster than a parasitic landlord would sell off a vacant lot under a Land Value Tax. And by the way I still can't stop thinking about Georgism. At this point I feel pretty confident saying that Land Value Tax + Urbanism (fuckcars) + (possibly) eliminating social media, internet, and smartphone addiction/dependence = All Problems Solved

@wildfire9280

Жыл бұрын

This guy sees the cat.

@abogical

Жыл бұрын

I like your description.

How have I never heard of this before?! This is a fantastic idea! Sharing this video as far and wide as I can!

man the comparison between land and air just made my brain start functioning again, thank you

The moment when socialists and capitalists all abandon their beliefes and want to be georgists

@sharkwaffle1582

2 жыл бұрын

the wonderful thing is that they don't have to; Georgism is a truly centrist ideology, and pretty much anybody from any background can agree that it sounds like a good idea

@Joee1530

2 жыл бұрын

Personally I’m a geosocialist and it seems like the perfect compromise to me

@minutemaidhater

2 жыл бұрын

why would socialism abandon there beliefs instead of incorporating Georgists beliefs into socialism

@bonda_racing3579

2 жыл бұрын

@@minutemaidhater georgism is not based in Marxism so they won't accept it. It might line up to their ideology but doesn't add to it meaning that it doesn't lead to communism after the revolution.

@gavins8649

2 жыл бұрын

@@Joee1530 sorry I know this is an older comment I’m just curious. How would georgism and socialism work? Because rn I consider myself a socialist but also like a lot of georgism beliefs. But I’m reading these cites saying you can’t be both or it’s complicated. So could you explain?

I first encountered Henry George's writings back in the early 1970s, forgot about them, but then began a year of formal studies at an extension of the Henry George School in 1980. Although I came to fully embrace Henry's analysis, I did not warm up to being referred as a "Georgist." What would Henry George say was the "ism" he embraced? Some years later I got the answer. An historian named Paul Gaston gave a talk on the origins of the utopian community of Fair Hope, located on Mobile Bay in Alabama. Fair Hope was organized under the principles of "cooperative individualism." It immediately struck me that it was cooperative individualism that described what Henry George was writing about. In 1997, I took the first steps to promote the principles of cooperative individualism, establishing the School of Cooperative Individualism as an internet-based education and research project. The project continues with an extensive and growing online library of papers, articles and books on political economy and the social sciences, with an emphasis of the writings of Henry George and those who followed in his footsteps.

This video is amazing, the only good video on Georgism I´ve found, you deserve more views for this!

This is a good video.

three cheers for captions making the video accessible 💛💚

Well, this is a novel solution to me. You definitively led me in the direction of wanting to read more on the topic. Thank you for explaining the idea og Georgism in a short and concise manner, and quite decent production value too.

I guess I'm a Georgist now

It took two watch-throughs to wrap my head around it, but this sounds like a good idea. However, as an Idahoan, I'm curious as to how this will affect the "public land" that already exists, that being protected national parks

@taoliu3949

2 жыл бұрын

Basically any land that's intentionally kept fallow exists as a subsidy on society. The difference is that under a LVT system it's a lot more clear and society can make better decisions on whether or not to keep land fallow or allow it to develop. So National Parks can still exist, but it's costs on society is a lot more clear.

@SpoopySquid

5 ай бұрын

The same way UBI must be combined with stricter consumer protections, LVT must be combined with better zoning laws and environmental regulation.

I’m fairly sure that this is similar to how council tax was originally intended to work in the UK.in some ways. Trouble is that the tax bands are still based on what land cost in the early 90s because it turns out nobody felt like updating the records , so now it’s wildly detached from the actual value of the property.

@taoliu3949

2 жыл бұрын

It's a huge issue and is why the LVT was repealed in Pittsburgh. Basically the county failed to reassess land values for over a decade, and when the reassessment came due everyone's taxes jumped and so the LVT was repealed in favor of the traditional property tax. For the LVT to work, reassessments have to be performed regularly.

Good work man. I can't believe I missed this video in my regular trawls for georgist content on KZread.

I'm starting to study politics and I'm a right winger libertarian, honestly I like this ideology a lot.

@keith-ole

3 жыл бұрын

@Andrea Bella Fellow libertarian here. How did you like the book? Thinking about reading it soon.

@callidusvulpes5556

3 жыл бұрын

I’m a socialist and I certainly like the ideas here and it doesn’t seem like Georgism conflicts with the core principles of socialism.

@jasser1918

3 жыл бұрын

@@callidusvulpes5556 Really? The free market and capitalism still exists, and so do many other things socialists seem to hate.

@callidusvulpes5556

3 жыл бұрын

@@jasser1918 Well I’m an anarcho-syndicalist, so it actually meshes pretty well (it would be known as geosyndicalism).

@gabbar51ngh

3 жыл бұрын

@@callidusvulpes5556 Henry George was against socialism though.

This is my go to video to get Georgism on the mind, thank you 🙏🏻

Slightly Obscure 18th Century Political Economy Revival Gang, what up

This is my Plan B after anarchocommunism, it's just so neat.

This is litterally a comprimise between all political ideologies and I love it

@SpoopySquid

5 ай бұрын

The only good centrism

I Iike how well this fits with the capitalistic ethos.

Much to think about, considering most people will spend a good chunk of their life incomes on either rent or mortgages.

I wish these kinds of videos would bring up some potential downsides to these systems at least a little. Like I'm definatly not arguing it's not a system that would work, I just tend to get a bunch of red flags in my head when people talk about a system that seemingly has zero problems, I don't think those exist in practice. Like what happens if somebody can't pay their land tax? Do they get booted off the land? But then that kinda defeats the point of the system. I guess they couldn't not be able to afford it with the universal income, but then again they're just paying it with the money that they payed last month, that just sounds like a funky ponzie scheme to me. Again, I don't think it wouldn't work, but I just don't like it when people get too far into believing their system would actually be a perfect utopia. If we want it to work, we need to acknowledge the potential downfalls.

@gd3741

2 жыл бұрын

my biggest qualm with it is that like every other supposed tax 'fix' the government will say it will replace income tax but will just ad it on top of everything else. besides that it sounds pretty good

@grzegorzha.

2 жыл бұрын

@@gd3741 Even if that happens, it's still more money for funding schools, roads, healthcare and stuff like that.

@gd3741

2 жыл бұрын

@@grzegorzha. they don't use it for that though. Plus in my country we are over taxed enough. We already had the get system get introduced to replace all other taxes but instead just got added on top. If they did land tax on top their would be no point to work at all. You might as well just curl up and wait for death

@falsename226

2 жыл бұрын

Since the tax is based on the value of the land before improvements, the only way that you could not earn enough to pay for your land is if you were doing literally nothing with it, or in other words, if you shouldn't own the land.

@djdjukic

2 жыл бұрын

@@falsename226 do we really have to "improve" every last square inch of land though? Cut down every forest, dam up every river? I feel like gentrification especially would be a huge issue... MOVE OUT PEASANTS!

>"whatever is left of the land value tax revenue" good joke pal

@HierapolisPhrygia

2 жыл бұрын

You’re right that does seem like a problem. Maybe there should be a guaranteed percentage of the tax that always goes back to the people.

@Fr4ncM

2 жыл бұрын

Without corruption, there's always money left, trust me.

@taoliu3949

2 жыл бұрын

@@HierapolisPhrygia That's why George stressed a democratic government accountable to the people. Also, any increase in government spending would mean less excess redistributed to the people. This gives an actual incentive for people to hold the government accountable for their spending which would ultimately lead to a less wasteful government.

@baph0met

2 жыл бұрын

@@HierapolisPhrygia It should all go to the people, fuck the state

Had to come back to this banger of a video after Tom Nicholas slandered Georgism and claimed Monopoly is socialist in his video

This video gives me an immense amount of comfort and satisfaction

simultaneously ensuring people can have affordable housing and land ownership whilst avoiding the tragedy of the commons.

Good stuff here, great upload.

I find this interesting because this somewhat conflicts with some of the videos I find on "not just bikes" and beautiful cities. How would this work with current zoning laws that favor single family home dwellings. Most homeowners would be forces to eat the cost of empty front yards or downsize. How could georgeism support mixed used spaces and a more robust walk-able transit system?

@fluidthought42

2 жыл бұрын

Actually I find this dovetails nicely with the problems brought up by those channels. Mainly, that America needs to stop legally mandating ineffecient usage of land, especially for housing. While hopefully there'd be some tax breaks for the residences of homeowners, the fact is that more effecient usage of land like mixed use development or multi-family housing would allow for easier payment of a Land Value Tax. So proper deregulation of these archaic restrictions plus the economic incentives of Land Value Tax would help lead to more walkable cities. In essence, we would be directly addressing the missing middle problem short of developing that middle ourselves through government programs, which I'm not entirely opposed to but that's another thing entirely. It's also thanks to those channels that helped me answer some questions I had about Georgism, namely how to determine the taxation level for any particular parcel of land. Now when I said deregulation I don't mean a complete nuking of all housing laws. Things like restricting from building on flood plains, requiring proper electrical wiring, and not letting a slaughterhouse or toxic waste plant be built in the middle of residential neighborhoods are Good Things. I mean that single family zoning is abolished, as is the majority of residential only or commercial only (along with other non essentials, like inneffecient minimum lot sizes or offsets). But that doesn't subsequently necessitate the abolishing of all density zoning, so there'd be a new floor for zoning but the ceiling would still remain the same. So you can't build high rises wherever, but you can build duplexes and buildings with retail spots with two stories on the ground floor and rental rooms on the second in most places (that aren't industrial only o whatever). _However_ even just a simple duplex or mixed use development would be ineffecient and wasteful in high density neighborhoods, so if we have a system that determines taxation level based on density zoning, that would help cities that need to become more dense get there and yet allow for those who truly live and operate in rural environments (farmers, ranchers and their neighbors) to survive without being taxed out of living in their own towns.

@fluidthought42

2 жыл бұрын

Tl;dr, changing something as small as zoning laws would be a much easier policy push than socializing all land, so definitely should be addressed before implementing Georgism.

@darthutah6649

2 жыл бұрын

It woud likely force municipalities to allow mixed use spaces.

@taoliu3949

2 жыл бұрын

IMO Georgism synthesizes well with StrongTowns and Not Just Bikes. Georgism doesn't talk about urban planning, but it does talk about efficient use of land which is what StrongTowns is about as well. The difference is Georgism doesn't get into urban planning, but it's LVT allows for incentives to be realigned properly. By tying taxes directly to land value, you create a system where landowners and the government are incentivised to actually improve and make land more productive then to subject it to inefficient uses.

@nienke7713

2 жыл бұрын

suburban sprawl creates really low value land, which under LVT would be something governments would want to prevent, as turning the land into high value land would profit them much more, so governments would be incentivized to change zoning laws to accomodate development that creates a higher value (such as urban, mixed use, and middle-density housing, depending on demand). From a developer perspecrive, LVT incentivices getting most value out of the development by developing it extensively (whereas property tax kind of does the opposite). Ultimately every party involved is stimulated (for personal gain) to work towards the most efficient use of land (i.e. not suburban sprawl). At most you'd have a little bit of suburban sprawl if and when there is enough space and demand for it.

Those 0.0001% would stop us...

"Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hands? God made the land for the people."

at first I thought what bs is this gonna be after watching I completely agree

That’s actually a really good idea.

Found you a few days ago, am now binging all of your content.

This video single-handedly revived Georgism as an ideology

Man I wanted ,and still want, something like this in Ireland for years. There is a lot of areas in Ireland that is owned by Americans and they do nothing with it so it’s always an eye sore, or it’s land kept that was supposed to have hoses built on it but nothing happened

The only problem I could envision is that some authority figures might be incentivized to provide false land value estimations to help their rich buddies out.

@taoliu3949

2 жыл бұрын

You can't really just falsify land values. Land values are relatively consistent with other nearby land values. In other words, there should not be any crazy difference in land values for plots next to each other.

@BandGGaming

11 ай бұрын

​@@taoliu3949sure, but if you ask someone to make your value lower, they can do so by just saying the lots next to you are slightly lower than they really are, which is based on the plots around them being slightly lower than they actually are. Unless there's one definitive formula that provides no possible corruption or incentive, based on literally only the actual physical value of the mineral resources of your land, there's opportunities for human corruption

4:05 I like the added detail of Woodrow Wilson being right side up

Love how you opened with Marching Through Georgia, great sound track.

i'm a lift leaning libertarian and i adore this system of tax. I've know about this way of taxing land because of good old Taiwan!

@sebastienholmes548

2 жыл бұрын

"Lift"

Other economists have the same idea, thus you read about they opposition to the "rentier" class. A "rentier" is someone who gets money due to owning something, generally land, because be or she owns it not that they do anything with the property. "Rentier" is often confused with "rent" for in feudal days "rent" is what serfs working the land had to pay their feudal lords. Later when the concept of leasing property was invented the lease payments were also called "rent" but there is a difference. In a lease someone is paying not only for the land, but any improvements on that land. Feudal "rent" was just for the land, any improvements had to be paid by the serf. Please note there is a movement in regards to rental homes to force the tenant to pay for any "repairs" to the rental unit. Today, the general rule is such "Repairs" must be paid by the landlord as the cost of leasing out a house or apartment. Under the rule that landlords pay for repairs, the landlords are providing a service in addition to just renting out the rental unit. Under this movement we are seeing a move to make the Tenant pay for such "repairs" and the landlord gets his or her rent no matter what. It is a return to feudalism without the rights a Serf had under feudalism (such as a Serf could not be evicted and the feudal lord had a duty to protect the Serf and even provide care is times of hardship). Sorry about the Tangent on Serfs and feudalism for George and other economists had no problem of someone getting money for what they are doing for the actual user of the land. George and other economists objected to someone getting money from a person working land but did nothing in return for that payment. These "Rentiers" are seen as economic parasites as opposed to many landlords who do provide a service to tenants (Service can be building the building on the land, making sure the building has utility service, doing repairs to the rental unit etc). Just a comment on why "Rentiers" are the enemy of most people, some landlords are "Rentiers" but others are NOT and some are both. A tax on land so that the value of the land, but not the improvements on the land is the key to George's theory and why most of the top 1% of the population, who gets most of their money through economic "rent" hate his idea even more then they hate Communism.

@legchairhistorian5496

2 жыл бұрын

I see. So this wouldn’t kill the landlords but rather the slowly sap away at the large business conglomerates and Neglectful landowners.

@paulmentzer7658

2 жыл бұрын

@@legchairhistorian5496 Those are the "Rentier" most early economists hated and wanted destroyed. The economists saw these "rent takers" as parasites on the economy, doing nothing to help the overall economy but just sapping the life out of people actually making the economy work.

I live in Japan, and I pay what's called the "fixed asset tax", a form of land value tax. According to ChatGPT: One of the distinctive features of Japan's land value tax system is the separation of the tax into two components: the "land value tax" (also known as the "fixed land tax") and the "city planning tax." The land value tax is calculated based on the assessed value of the land itself, while the city planning tax is calculated based on the assessed value of any structures or buildings on the land. The system aims to incentivize efficient land use and discourage land speculation. Because the tax is based on land value, it encourages property owners to develop or use their land more productively to minimize their tax liability. This has contributed to Japan's efficient land utilization and urban development practices.

Thanks for the video. Love your content. Just got done reading progress and poverty for a second time. I want to read it again and take notes. You introduced me to George. Now we see if I am able to get myself together enough to make some good notes.

0:41 Wait until you realize what the local telecom committee sells you when you rent a radio freq

@whatevernamegoeshere3644

2 жыл бұрын

@Lazys The Dank Engineer For someone called dank engineer, you really aren't showing off your sense of humor

The whole invented issue assumption screams out to me even though those issues aren't directly relevant here.

I knew I was Georgist, and this video filled in my gap in logic

This needs to be spread and discussed more

I don't see how this gets rid of land lords, I can still buy land and charge people rent to live on it.

@legchairhistorian5496

2 жыл бұрын

As I’ve read others comments I believe they think that due to higher taxes on landlords they will go out of business or at least not be wealthy due to redistribution.

@sultanofswingdrift3021

2 жыл бұрын

The more land person owns, higher the tax rate becomes... People owning just their own house would have the base tax rate, people owning many properties would be paying higher percentage. This incentivies big businesses to not just buy every property in the area for no reason

@olle6727

2 жыл бұрын

@@sultanofswingdrift3021 just raise the rent accordingly

@sultanofswingdrift3021

2 жыл бұрын

@@olle6727 well there is a point when mortgage becomes cheaper than rent, especially if you pay lower rate tax for your own house than your landlord does 😉

@fluidthought42

2 жыл бұрын

Well if land is truly socialized, then what is being rented isn't the land but the housing (or other development). Accordingly the value of the development doesn't increase because of the price of land, so instead to increase or even just maintain value of their property (which is again, divorced from the value of land) owners have to actively maintain and improve the development. Great you might think, that's what landlords should be doing in the first place. However under the current system slum lords and land speculation are incentivized instead, which are an economic and societal burden. Tl:dr rentiers would still exist but strictly speaking landlords wouldn't.

good to know it works in singapore. This is good street credit for this ideal type of land reform

Thank you for explaining this.

Love the music choice.

I wish this video and others spent more time explaining how this tax system isn't property taxes.

@texashokiesboyfan

2 жыл бұрын

A land value tax is like a property tax but it doesn't include the value of the property on the land. Let's say we had a 1 square kilometer chunk of land in the middle of the city. That land would be very valuable. Imagine four scenarios. 1. I build nothing 2. I build a 1 story house 3. I build a duplex 4. I build an apartment complex. Under property tax I would pay different amounts of tax depending on what type of building. The more I build or "improve" the more I pay. But with a land value tax I would pay the same for all four scenarios.

@formicidaeinc.8075

2 жыл бұрын

@@texashokiesboyfan how is the land value determined?

@taoliu3949

2 жыл бұрын

@@formicidaeinc.8075 There are many ways to assess land values. Basically it boils down to the unimproved value of land, or how much the land would be worth if it was sitting vacant.

Georgism is one the very few points were all factions of liberalism and socialism agree

Im astonuded on how your channel has such a small amount of subscribers for the content you produce. I hope you get the subs you deserve.

Criminally underrated video.

Based & land-pilled

I remember the Andy Griffith show, I understand single tax but why does that guy want to get rid of the gold standard? Most georgists I’ve seen online want a gold standard and it prevents inflation.

@pharos670

3 жыл бұрын

@@Aaronomus savings are good as they create sustainable booms and secure people for the future. Also debt-based growth is a terrible idea

@falsename226

2 жыл бұрын

Inflation isn't always a bad thing, and a fixed money supply can cause deflation.

@SpoopySquid

5 ай бұрын

​@@falsename226it also places hard limits on a nation's growth, which can cause serious problems in moments of crisis. There's a reason most countries started ditching it during or shortly after WW2

That must be the only thing I agree with Friedman.

I like the subtle "that would be impossible, instead" Matrix joke lol.

luv the animations :)

TBH, the only reason we don’t pay to breath air here in America is because they can’t figure out a way to take the air away from us. And we’ve seen what they did to the necessary-to-not-die insulin. If they could take it, they would.

What a based individual.

Even though I don’t agree with georgism, I must thank you for providing such a clear explanation about it. Thank you.

@sultanofswingdrift3021

2 жыл бұрын

what is your objection?

@charlietheron8947

2 жыл бұрын

@@sultanofswingdrift3021 I don't know about the original poster but my objection is the whole ubi aspect.

@sultanofswingdrift3021

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlietheron8947 I don't see the emphasis on UBI as much as on tax policy... Regarding UBI, I think current system with social workers is just promoting corruption and wasting labor force. I know too many healthy people claiming disabilities, and too many social workers who mix their personal beliefs into their work. I think UBI is clean, easy and cost effective solution, though probably imposible to implement, because people sucking on current system would make too big of a fuss. Maybe reverse tax could be more effective, but it counts on ultra poor doing their taxes right which is kind of oxymoron.

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlietheron8947 The Citizen's Dividend would likely not exist in our modern states because Social Democracies have way more public spending than 19th century America did so there will really not be any money left

@PhrozenFox

Жыл бұрын

Your opinion is wrong but that's okay.

I don’t get how It would remove landlords though. Won’t there still be a need for rent and therefore landlords?

I’m in Ohio and the housing market here over the last 7-8 years is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Homes that were bought for $130K in 2015 are now being sold for $590k. I’m talking about tiny, disgusting, poorly built 950 square foot shit boxes in quite mediocre neighborhoods. Then you’ve got a etter, average sized homes in nicer neighborhoods that were $300K+ 10 years ago selling for $750k+ now. Wild times.

@HildaBennet

2 ай бұрын

Housing will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes.If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.

@FinnBraylon

2 ай бұрын

This is my reason for having an asset manager look over my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a manager for more than two years, and I've made over 85% of my initial amount/

@PennyBergeron-os4ch

2 ай бұрын

Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach you using their services?

@FinnBraylon

2 ай бұрын

’Sonya Lee Mitchell, is respected in this field. I suggest delving deeper into her credentials, as she possesses experience and serves as a valuable resource

@PennyBergeron-os4ch

2 ай бұрын

She does appear to be well-educated and well-read. I ran an online search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.

Kebabs AND Pizza?! There's no way they're doing all of that well.

Great video ! However I am wondering... so land value taxes have a lot of strong economic advantages and clearly it is favoured by many economist. With all of this in mind, what do you think is the reason why it is not implemented in every country across the world?

@javierperalta7648

4 жыл бұрын

Because land lords literally run the world and they don't want the status quo to be changed

@jacksonmclellan3370

4 жыл бұрын

You would have to get quite a large movement behind it

@LinkWave290

4 жыл бұрын

Because of ignorance and vested interests

@science_is_fake_and_gay2710

2 жыл бұрын

@@javierperalta7648 They are not that powerful tbh

@cho4d

2 жыл бұрын

The people who benefit from the status quo are the only ones with the power to change it (outside of bloody revolution)

Marching Through Georgia is an absolute banger.

what do you mean it solves the issue with landlords? efficient space use, sure, but not landlords. Consider a city, where 50% of the properties are owned by dwellers, 30% by corporate entities and 20% by landlords. When a new property goes on the market (from the building company that made it), it is the people with surplus money (the dwellers in own property, and likely ones who own multiple properties) will be the ones with purchasing power to buy it. Hence, given that the rate of property demand is same with property supply (a reasonable assumption), renters and landlords will persist. The key reason is, that on paper (not so much in practice) the landlord is a business entity that ensures that you have a reasonable living space (house is built up to spec, nothing is leaking, etc.) and pays for it out of their pocket, and hence charges you for living in this space - a la motel. I fail to see how a land value tax will make landlords less prominent.

@snoopdigglet1519

2 жыл бұрын

If a landlord charged you $400 a week to live in "their" house in a georgist economy they would be taxed $400 a week, they litralty gain no benefit to charging rent.

@zuresei

2 жыл бұрын

@@snoopdigglet1519 couldn't they just make rent higher? if the response is "the value of the land would increase" then how would any business make a profit, if they're paying all the business-related value to the government? georgism argues that the land is what's taxed, not the structures atop it. this would make landlording _worse._

@legchairhistorian5496

2 жыл бұрын

@@snoopdigglet1519 wouldn’t that stop them from renting it out and thus make less houses in the long term?

@snoopdigglet1519

2 жыл бұрын

@@zuresei business-related value != land value

@snoopdigglet1519

2 жыл бұрын

@@legchairhistorian5496 you can already get houses built on a loan.

I love the bit a bout LVT replacing all other taxes. Hilarious!!!

This is delightful.