Some anonymous comments from an anonymous American who lives in ROK and speaks Korean:
I think the article's general description of Lee, housing, and taxation is accurate, but oversimplified. However, I don't think the oversimplification can be avoided.
I see Lee more as an economic social justice warrior, and to whatever extent he embraces Georgism, it is only with economic social justice in mind. I'd say Lee is more of a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren type, though more practical, and less crass. I think his adoption of anything Georgist is more coincidental in his pursuit of economic equity. But, maybe that means he'd be more receptive to it, as and ideology, than other politicians.
I don't think Georgism has yet reached the mainstream public consciousness that I'm typically surround by, but, to be fair, that doesn't appear to have happened in the U.S. either. Korea in 2025, through the Lee administration, just might be the right time and place for the ideas of Georgism to gain political legitimacy.
My wife and I were both not familiar with any policy of his specifically incorporating LVT, until reading the article. The sources appear accurate, but land value taxation was not a prominent mention in any of the media we consumed. My wife's aunt and uncle are big Lee advocates, so I'll have to ask them if they were aware of any LVT policies of his.
What I'd add to anyone reading the article is to understand how, like in the United States, housing in Korea is being (ab)used to obtain and preserve wealth. There is a significant segment of the Korean population that derives much of their wealth from real estate investment, speculation, and rent seeking. Just as in the United States, the average home owner in Korea is also engaging in that game, by signing themselves up for low-interest, very long-term mortgages, in the hope that over the long term, inflation will erode their principle. That has worked pretty well for the past 20 years, but I think it may be coming to an end, especially as the elderly begin to pass on, and all of their assets get put on the market to fewer and fewer younger buyers.
As painful as it is to say, it would probably be better if Georgism wasn’t tied too closely to the nation demographically charging off a cliff. It will be so easy to fools to tie the collapsing economy to the tax system.
Consider an investor choosing between A) buying two vacant lots and simply holding them to someday resell, vs. B) only buying one of the lots, and then spending the other half of their available money building some immediately useful structure on it.
If land and structures are taxed at the same rate, then the two options face identical tax liability; if only land value is taxed, option A's tax bill is twice option B's. Would you agree that constitutes a plausibly significant shift in incentives? If not, why?
Some anonymous comments from an anonymous American who lives in ROK and speaks Korean:
I think the article's general description of Lee, housing, and taxation is accurate, but oversimplified. However, I don't think the oversimplification can be avoided.
I see Lee more as an economic social justice warrior, and to whatever extent he embraces Georgism, it is only with economic social justice in mind. I'd say Lee is more of a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren type, though more practical, and less crass. I think his adoption of anything Georgist is more coincidental in his pursuit of economic equity. But, maybe that means he'd be more receptive to it, as and ideology, than other politicians.
Searching for a few similar Korean terms I found one from about 3 years ago: https://www.chosun.com/economy/real_estate/2021/08/03/PBYVRNKXVRGPTDTJGCQC7ZBLHI/ It's specifically about Lee and Georgism. There's an accompanying video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiPq9nymHao It's quite entertaining and encouraging to hear native Koreans mentioning Henry George by name. :-)
I don't think Georgism has yet reached the mainstream public consciousness that I'm typically surround by, but, to be fair, that doesn't appear to have happened in the U.S. either. Korea in 2025, through the Lee administration, just might be the right time and place for the ideas of Georgism to gain political legitimacy.
My wife and I were both not familiar with any policy of his specifically incorporating LVT, until reading the article. The sources appear accurate, but land value taxation was not a prominent mention in any of the media we consumed. My wife's aunt and uncle are big Lee advocates, so I'll have to ask them if they were aware of any LVT policies of his.
What I'd add to anyone reading the article is to understand how, like in the United States, housing in Korea is being (ab)used to obtain and preserve wealth. There is a significant segment of the Korean population that derives much of their wealth from real estate investment, speculation, and rent seeking. Just as in the United States, the average home owner in Korea is also engaging in that game, by signing themselves up for low-interest, very long-term mortgages, in the hope that over the long term, inflation will erode their principle. That has worked pretty well for the past 20 years, but I think it may be coming to an end, especially as the elderly begin to pass on, and all of their assets get put on the market to fewer and fewer younger buyers.
gotta learn korean.
Phonetically, I think this is enough to survive: 베이스트 앤드 랜드필드
Their alphabet is beautiful. One of the simplest and beautifully designed systems in the world.
It's pretty neat. A syllabary constructed from an underlying phonetic alphabet.
As painful as it is to say, it would probably be better if Georgism wasn’t tied too closely to the nation demographically charging off a cliff. It will be so easy to fools to tie the collapsing economy to the tax system.
It would be even better if Georgism had already succeeded in the 20th century... this is no time to turn away allies
Although if they get a housing boom, that might actually help encourage household formation and having kids.
It would definitely help but in the same way that closing the barn door helps when the horses bolted decades ago.
The idea that lvt discourages speculation is just an insane myth that refuses to die. By definition, lvt can't change your incentives.
Consider an investor choosing between A) buying two vacant lots and simply holding them to someday resell, vs. B) only buying one of the lots, and then spending the other half of their available money building some immediately useful structure on it.
If land and structures are taxed at the same rate, then the two options face identical tax liability; if only land value is taxed, option A's tax bill is twice option B's. Would you agree that constitutes a plausibly significant shift in incentives? If not, why?
What's interesting is that property taxes are quite a significant portion of revenue, yet house prices are a major problem.
I thought generally, Georgists' second favourite tax was the property tax.
The primary advantage an LVT has over a property tax is incentivising high density housing construction.