Talk:Georgism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard. | |
The Georgist principle predates George, and different sub-schools of thought have been thinking up new names since his time. Many advocacy groups which formed in the early 20th century described themselves as Single Taxers, and George endorsed this as being an accurate description of the movement's main political goal - the replacement of all taxes with a Land Value Tax.
It's rather unlikely that George, who died in 1897, endorsed the self-description of groups that "formed in the early 20th century." The wording should be changed, but I don't feel like doing it myself; I don't know the subject and I'm not entirely sure what the sentence was trying to say. Isomorphic 04:45, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, fixed. Chronology never my strong point! Pm67nz 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Good fix. Sorry if I came off obnoxious when pointing that out; I actually thought it was rather funny. Isomorphic 07:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You didn't, thanks for pointing it out. Pm67nz 09:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Does Georgism=free-market environmentalism? Is there a case for merge+redirect here? Cutler
No. Georgism is much older than environmentalism and has a very different history. While the two philosophies may come to similar conclusions, they do so from unrelated axioms. -- Derek Ross
What about "intellectual property"? The page about Henry George says he was also critical of patents and copyright.
In Progress and Poverty, George denounced patents and copyrights as essentially monopolies on ideas, but he later added a footnote retracting that statement, saying that while it did applied to patents, copyrights did not prevent people from borrowing facts or ideas, to which all people have a right, but merely the specific wording, which is the product of one's labor. Thus, he ultimately came out against patents, but for copyrights. --Paradigm 14:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to say, it's outlandish to suggest that David Lloyd George was a Georgist in practice, given he's responsible for the graduated income tax in the UK.
We need to mention South Korea some how. Its founders where mostly Georgists. I'm not sure what relevant laws or other facts to cite though, I might look into it some time... --Jacob 05:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] clause deleted
I deleted this clause: "isms" named for a single person have developed an image problem CSMR 02:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning Misconstrued?
"...the economic rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it." Shouldn't that be "...of the public that OWNS it"? Or am I reading it wrong? Peter Delmonte 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes; the public creates land value, no matter who owns the land.
[edit] Name
Surely Single Tax, while not universally accurate, is more widely recognized? Shouldn't the article be there? It redirects here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think single taxers should be mentioned somewhereJUBALCAIN 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Straight off Usenet?
Article reads like it was taken off an advocacy page. No dissenting views on Georgism. Little citation.
although no change in land rental prices (other than those caused by reduction of other taxes and regulations) for reasons first explained by Adam Smith. -Expand on this?
In today's more economically complex world, a quick and total change to LVT is very difficult to sell politically, so the term "Georgist" has come into vogue, being a more general term which encompasses even incremental changes towards the ideal of replacing unjust and economically destructive taxes on economic activity by recovery of the economic rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates land value. -Unjust from the perspective of a Georgist. This is pure editorializing.
Those who expressed similar thoughts before Henry George include: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, William Ogilvie of Pittensear, Thomas Paine (notably in "Agrarian Justice", 1795), William Penn, Adam Smith, Patrick Edward Dove, Herbert Spencer and Jacques Turgot. -Sources? At least a quote or two?
George's ideas were also predated by traditional land taxes levied at various times in Japan, China, India, Egypt and other countries, such taxes often being accompanied by marked prosperity. -A common claim by Georgists. Details? Which periods? Details about the lax structures? Prosperity defined how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StanfordBC (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Answers as follows:
- 1. Adam Smith expansion straight from The Wealth of Nations Book 1, Chapter XI, first paragraph:
- Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. Sometimes, indeed, the liberality, more frequently the ignorance, of the landlord, makes him accept of somewhat less than this portion; and sometimes too, though more rarely, the ignorance of the tenant makes him undertake to pay somewhat more, or to content himself with somewhat less than the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This portion, however, may still be considered as the natural rent of land, or the rent for which it is naturally meant that land should for the most part be let.
- The emphasised portion gives the reason why a rational Landlord cannot pass LVT onto the tenant.
- 2. Since no Georgists have so far objected and plenty watch this page, I question whether it is pure editorialising. Read the Land value tax article for more.
- 3. Fair enough.
- 4. Not sure about this para myself. Theoretically LVT can only be expected to have a positive effect if it replaces other taxes, at least partially. When it is used in addition to other taxes, the most that can be said is that it doesn't have a negative effect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- ummm lvt doesnt go to the tennant....is goes to the communityJUBALCAIN 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, obviously. But whether LVT is levied or not the tenant pays the same rent to the landlord as Adam Smith makes clear above. So what's your point ? Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- ummm lvt doesnt go to the tennant....is goes to the communityJUBALCAIN 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
1) I think this should find its way in to the article.
- The problem is just adding it without going on a long side discussion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2) By 'unjust,' I meant that the taxes mentioned in the quoted section are described as unjust and destructive as a matter of fact. This article should describe what Georgists believe, not express their beliefs as fact. Instead this section reads more like Georgist advocacy.
- Okay that should be doable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)