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.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

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)

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)

[edit] Critics

Many Wikipedia articles about political theories and policy ideas include entire sections that outline the views of critics. This article is missing any reference to critics, usual criticisms, etc. I'm very, very new to this topic - and so don't feel qualified (yet) to add content here. I'm trying to understand Georgism, but the lack of critical viewpoints makes this article quite a bit thin. Karichisholm 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A few editors have made that point over the years. However I think that this reflects that the fact that there isn't much criticism of Georgism, just a reluctance to put it into practice. If you want to see the usual criticisms you will find them in the Land Value Tax article which covers much the same ground as this one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
At least historically, Georgism was the subject of an enormous amount of criticism, in a wide range of sources. These three posts should give some sense of the traditional criticisms. It wouldn't be too hard to document some of the major debates for a Criticism section. Libertatia 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
<Grin>, please feel free to do so. There is no doubt that you will improve the article by providing another viewpoint. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on it as time allows. I don't want to load the article up with extraneous stuff. Perhaps it would be useful to add a bit about the internal debate over "enclaves" in the section on "communities" as well. Libertatia 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure Georgists

The Famous Georgists section is slowly growing into a lengthy list of all georgists with wikipedia pages, which is stretching the definition of famous and the attention of the reader a bit thin, so rather than add 3 more economists to the list I have created Category:Georgist economists and Category:Georgist politicians. Those 2 categories catch most of the georgists with wikipedia pages, the remainder being mostly georgists-in-passing but otherwise famous ones such as Ford, Buckley, Twain and Tolstoy who are better just mentioned on this article where citations can be provided. Not sure what to do with Nock yet. As for trimming the current list we can argue about the moderately famous but there is one clear candidate for obscurity: Wolf Ladejinsky seems much less well known than the others. Pm67nz (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)