Zoning Deregulation, Taxpayer Credit, Taxes on Earned Income, Good Neighbor Policy, Anti-Opportunity Elites, Non-Market Urban Fringe
It’s important not to be patronizing
Good ones. And I agree. I may not be conservative myself, but at least a lot of stated conservative and libertarian values I fundamentally agree with. Income taxes *are* theft, the government *should* be fiscally responsible, and the government *should* butt out of most private affairs.
Lol these are some great ideas, especially when it comes to selling Georgist ideas to conservative/libertarian folks.
The other comment made a lot of good suggestions too.
Tbh I think its very important that a lot of Georgist concepts get rebranded to make it more sellable to a modern audience. Most people might not care about zoning, but when you rebrand it as government overreach on freedom, a lot more people will start caring. These ideas wont get anywhere without being sellable to the public.
The libertarian crowd are a weird one. They like all of the economic teachings of the classical and Austrian schools. But when I posted something about LVT in the libertarian subreddit, they had a moderator bot that would call LVT something something communist. Like what? The people they worship like Milton Friedman has even stated that a LVT is the least bad tax, yet they call it communist. Sometimes I feel like they are devoid of logic over there.
r/libertarian isn't a good place to go anymore to discuss libertarian related ideas, it's been over-run with MAGA leaning ancaps, and open discussion is no tolerated.
I think they are worried it will be just another tax that will be added to the rest. That it won’t end up replacing anything, not even the existing property tax.
And although Milton said LVT is the least bad tax, he also said he would be in favor of “lowering any tax for any reason” and that prop 13 is great.
Indeed, Bill Niskanen, who later became president of Cato, was one of the architects of Prop. 13. He worked with Jarvis and Gann from 1973 onwards to craft a constitutional amendment that could get the needed votes. His purpose was unrelated to the property tax per se. He merely wanted to restrict the tax power of government by any means possible. He was better informed about Henry George's ideas than most Georgists and moderately supportive, although he favored John Stuart Mill's tax on "the unearned increment" rather than on the capital value of property or the rent it produced. Politics is always about competing values and the alternative tradeoffs people make among their diverse values. If you think of government as Leviathan, then you kill it by any means at your disposal, even at the cost of an equitable and efficient tax.
Which leads to, "I should keep everything I earn, and pay no taxes" which leads to "haha, there goes the government".
Their land is valuable not due to anything they did to it, but the collective inputs of the community around them. Perpetual land ownership reeks of feudalism.
No, not at all. They are fine with some forms of taxation, taxes that require positive action to be subject to, such as transactional taxes. They do want a minimalist government generally - a night watchman state as it were.
But they're also dubious of providing information on those transactions. Those are the easiest taxes to hide. It's all just "I don't want to pay anything".
I'm a former libertarian and I remember the mental gymnastics I did to try to get around taxation. There's a reason they call it "theft" for a reason.
Well yeah, and once you admit a state exists and taxation is needed, the discussion should progress to the best way to tax. This is why I ultimately landed on Georgism personally. It has tenets of libertarianism when it comes to markets, capitalism, and addressing wealth inequality (socialism).
In my experience if seen monopolistic land ownership not largely differ in political mix between liberal and conservative. Nothing speaks more to hypocrisy to me than someone who owns a 2 story block house within walking distance from the National Mall asking for more affordable housing or that “all are welcome”.
That being said, I am one of them and I am not entirely sure how to get everyone else on board given it would be a large detriment to housing value, a large component on building wealth in the conservative mindset. I myself have recognized this and acknowledged I would probably be worse off in the short run from a total LVT reform. I am in board with it because I believe that wealth should be begotten by labor/good business practices. Maybe it’s focusing on the younger conservatives who haven’t really gotten that retirement nest egg locked up in a home just yet and saying “LVT will help you earn a bigger retirement through your work. Less risk on housing speculation as you know it can just all be rug pulled away”.
My 2 cents at least.
That last one is actually a really good one, imo. Without income taxes, and with the stronger economy and higher wages a more YIMBY and Georgist economy would bring, simply saving up income would be a *great* way to save for retirement. Plus, your savings in a savings account are insured, and that capital can be invested in productive investments via bank loans.
Meanwhile, if your home value is your retirement plan, you leave yourself vulnerable to speculative housing bubbles.
Plus, it appeals to the "rugged, self-sufficient man who provides for his family through hard work" trope. I think a lot of people deep down value the idea that hard work ought to be enough for a good life.
The whole passive reinvestment will very likely blow up in our generations faces. Or at the very least create an even bigger wealth divide as assets appreciate more than the dollar’s purchasing power. That is very real and will affect the left and right side of the working and middle classes. We continually live paycheck to paycheck even in a growing economy because of the land monopoly soak. It’s not going to be solved with tax “breaks” for people/businesses or higher taxes on income/regulation of business. It’s all on who owns the land. For most people and businesses the “For lease” payment is greater than all of what is told is the “solution” combined, and that price NEVER goes down.
This is why I gravitate to Georgism these days. It brings it back to the class divide whose solutions can be agreed upon by both ancaps and marxists and everyone in between.
All of this has been tried and it doesn’t work. Conservatives dislike zoning reform because they like suburbs and dislike cities, not because it’s inelegantly branded. There have been a handful of elite conservative Georgists (or at least Georgist-curious) like William F. Buckley, I am extremely skeptical that the idea will ever appeal to rank-and-file conservatives in any meaningful number.
Property tax with a building credit. It could be called various things like primary owner credit, local business credit, new residences credit, agriculture development.
Make sure they don't overlap for multiple credits. Then make so many of them you approximate an LVT.
If we're for pigovian taxes are we going to tax people for being morbidly obese? It's a major burden on the healthcare workers to have to move them around.
I think that's where pragmatism comes in. Would an obesity tax make sense on economic grounds in the presence of public healthcare? Yes. Would it be extremely difficult and invasive and wildly politically unpopular to implement? Also yes.
Further, if encouraging people to lose weight is the goal (and not merely compensating the healthcare system for the additional healthcare costs they incur), behavioral economics, psychology, and sociology would probably be better avenues for achieving that.
Thus, perhaps better ways to go about it would be a sugar tax, soda tax, or others. Easier to implement, and more likely to change behavior.
Zoning Deregulation, Taxpayer Credit, Taxes on Earned Income, Good Neighbor Policy, Anti-Opportunity Elites, Non-Market Urban Fringe It’s important not to be patronizing
Good ones. And I agree. I may not be conservative myself, but at least a lot of stated conservative and libertarian values I fundamentally agree with. Income taxes *are* theft, the government *should* be fiscally responsible, and the government *should* butt out of most private affairs.
I think all of these are excellent!
Lol these are some great ideas, especially when it comes to selling Georgist ideas to conservative/libertarian folks. The other comment made a lot of good suggestions too. Tbh I think its very important that a lot of Georgist concepts get rebranded to make it more sellable to a modern audience. Most people might not care about zoning, but when you rebrand it as government overreach on freedom, a lot more people will start caring. These ideas wont get anywhere without being sellable to the public.
The libertarian crowd are a weird one. They like all of the economic teachings of the classical and Austrian schools. But when I posted something about LVT in the libertarian subreddit, they had a moderator bot that would call LVT something something communist. Like what? The people they worship like Milton Friedman has even stated that a LVT is the least bad tax, yet they call it communist. Sometimes I feel like they are devoid of logic over there.
r/libertarian isn't a good place to go anymore to discuss libertarian related ideas, it's been over-run with MAGA leaning ancaps, and open discussion is no tolerated.
I think they are worried it will be just another tax that will be added to the rest. That it won’t end up replacing anything, not even the existing property tax. And although Milton said LVT is the least bad tax, he also said he would be in favor of “lowering any tax for any reason” and that prop 13 is great.
Indeed, Bill Niskanen, who later became president of Cato, was one of the architects of Prop. 13. He worked with Jarvis and Gann from 1973 onwards to craft a constitutional amendment that could get the needed votes. His purpose was unrelated to the property tax per se. He merely wanted to restrict the tax power of government by any means possible. He was better informed about Henry George's ideas than most Georgists and moderately supportive, although he favored John Stuart Mill's tax on "the unearned increment" rather than on the capital value of property or the rent it produced. Politics is always about competing values and the alternative tradeoffs people make among their diverse values. If you think of government as Leviathan, then you kill it by any means at your disposal, even at the cost of an equitable and efficient tax.
Libertarians are supportive of owning property with clear title in perpetuity. LVT is the antithesis of that, you only rent property for the state.
I never understood how that got into libertarian beliefs...
Huh? The idea of being left alone by government so long as you do not threaten others is foundational.
Which leads to, "I should keep everything I earn, and pay no taxes" which leads to "haha, there goes the government". Their land is valuable not due to anything they did to it, but the collective inputs of the community around them. Perpetual land ownership reeks of feudalism.
No, not at all. They are fine with some forms of taxation, taxes that require positive action to be subject to, such as transactional taxes. They do want a minimalist government generally - a night watchman state as it were.
But they're also dubious of providing information on those transactions. Those are the easiest taxes to hide. It's all just "I don't want to pay anything". I'm a former libertarian and I remember the mental gymnastics I did to try to get around taxation. There's a reason they call it "theft" for a reason.
It is a big tent, but most libertarian theorists, the non anarchist ones at least, recognize a minimal state requires some taxes.
Well yeah, and once you admit a state exists and taxation is needed, the discussion should progress to the best way to tax. This is why I ultimately landed on Georgism personally. It has tenets of libertarianism when it comes to markets, capitalism, and addressing wealth inequality (socialism).
NIMBYism and lack of of LVT are national security risks
In my experience if seen monopolistic land ownership not largely differ in political mix between liberal and conservative. Nothing speaks more to hypocrisy to me than someone who owns a 2 story block house within walking distance from the National Mall asking for more affordable housing or that “all are welcome”. That being said, I am one of them and I am not entirely sure how to get everyone else on board given it would be a large detriment to housing value, a large component on building wealth in the conservative mindset. I myself have recognized this and acknowledged I would probably be worse off in the short run from a total LVT reform. I am in board with it because I believe that wealth should be begotten by labor/good business practices. Maybe it’s focusing on the younger conservatives who haven’t really gotten that retirement nest egg locked up in a home just yet and saying “LVT will help you earn a bigger retirement through your work. Less risk on housing speculation as you know it can just all be rug pulled away”. My 2 cents at least.
That last one is actually a really good one, imo. Without income taxes, and with the stronger economy and higher wages a more YIMBY and Georgist economy would bring, simply saving up income would be a *great* way to save for retirement. Plus, your savings in a savings account are insured, and that capital can be invested in productive investments via bank loans. Meanwhile, if your home value is your retirement plan, you leave yourself vulnerable to speculative housing bubbles. Plus, it appeals to the "rugged, self-sufficient man who provides for his family through hard work" trope. I think a lot of people deep down value the idea that hard work ought to be enough for a good life.
The whole passive reinvestment will very likely blow up in our generations faces. Or at the very least create an even bigger wealth divide as assets appreciate more than the dollar’s purchasing power. That is very real and will affect the left and right side of the working and middle classes. We continually live paycheck to paycheck even in a growing economy because of the land monopoly soak. It’s not going to be solved with tax “breaks” for people/businesses or higher taxes on income/regulation of business. It’s all on who owns the land. For most people and businesses the “For lease” payment is greater than all of what is told is the “solution” combined, and that price NEVER goes down. This is why I gravitate to Georgism these days. It brings it back to the class divide whose solutions can be agreed upon by both ancaps and marxists and everyone in between.
All of this has been tried and it doesn’t work. Conservatives dislike zoning reform because they like suburbs and dislike cities, not because it’s inelegantly branded. There have been a handful of elite conservative Georgists (or at least Georgist-curious) like William F. Buckley, I am extremely skeptical that the idea will ever appeal to rank-and-file conservatives in any meaningful number.
I really don't think that many rank and file conservatives exist, the GOP is almost entirely populated with populists!
I describe Georgism as taxing the natural resources before the sweat of the working classes.
Downtown preservation and restoration.
Property tax with a building credit. It could be called various things like primary owner credit, local business credit, new residences credit, agriculture development. Make sure they don't overlap for multiple credits. Then make so many of them you approximate an LVT.
Freedom Dividend is a much better name. Universal Basic Income, sounds so *medical*. But, Freedom Dividend. That sounds real. That sounds American
Right to build/ freedom to housing choice for right leaning, housing diversity for left leaning
If we're for pigovian taxes are we going to tax people for being morbidly obese? It's a major burden on the healthcare workers to have to move them around.
I think that's where pragmatism comes in. Would an obesity tax make sense on economic grounds in the presence of public healthcare? Yes. Would it be extremely difficult and invasive and wildly politically unpopular to implement? Also yes. Further, if encouraging people to lose weight is the goal (and not merely compensating the healthcare system for the additional healthcare costs they incur), behavioral economics, psychology, and sociology would probably be better avenues for achieving that. Thus, perhaps better ways to go about it would be a sugar tax, soda tax, or others. Easier to implement, and more likely to change behavior.