I appreciate the Georgist philosophy, but in my opinion getting the word out and persuading people needs a concise, practical message. This is my “elevator pitch” for LVT.
“Here are three good reasons for replacing income and sales taxes with a Land Value Tax – which is like a property tax except it applies only to land, not buildings:
One, it’s simple to define and enforce. The tax would be “x” percent of assessed land value, no exceptions. You can try to hide income but you can’t hide land.
Two, it’s both progressive and pro-growth. The wealthy own most of the high priced land and would pay most of the taxes, but the tax on both income and consumption would be zero – a win-win for progressives and conservatives.
Three, LVT sends the right message. You make money by providing useful products and services, not wheeling and dealing in real estate. Building on land will not be taxed, but simply owning land will be taxed.
Ok, here’s my floor. You think about this and get back to me.”
Notice what I did not mention – all the philosophical background about the common ownership of the Earth and how monopolistic landlords are exploiting the workers. That stuff just gives LVT opponents scary sounding talking points (“A bunch of commies want to take away your land!”). It’s tax reform, not a revolution.
Au contraire, Georgists have plied the economic talking points ad nauseum for nearly a century, and it turns out no one cares. Sure, we've convinced the economists- most of them are in favor of land value taxes. But it turns out, economists don't have much political clout. The average person cares little about the efficiency of taxes- they are mostly concerned with the size of the chunk that comes out of their wallet, and what they get in return. There is not much appetite for arcane tax policy- even in Washington, what is argued over is basically just whether there should be 'more' or 'less' taxation.
What is appealing to people is the basic ethical principle of Georgism: you own what you make, no one made the Earth, therefore the Earth and its natural resources are the common property of man. That is understandable, easily illustrated, and morally compelling.
I consider myself a well-informed political junkie, but I had never heard of LVT or Single Tax until some years ago when I "discovered" Henry George via a passing reference in an obscure political publication that had apparently rented the Libertarian Party mailing list (speaking of obscure!). And I'm sure if you stop random people on the street and asked "Who was Henry George?" they would have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
In Henry's day there was no income tax. This is the time of year when people are starting to agonize over their 1040s, W2s, 1099s, etc. and might be willing to listen to an alternative - with a "sales pitch" that hits hard at the practical benefits of LVT ("Yes, we CAN abolish the income tax and the sales tax, grow the economy and fund the government - here's how!")
Hey, we are on the same side and want the same things, but how do we get there? Maybe the message needs to be tailored for different audiences. I happen to think that there is a bigger audience for a more practical, less philosophical message.
Our decision to dedicate this substack to speaking on the philosophical message of Georgism is well reasoned and intentional.
The practical aspects aren't very interesting to read about to a general audience and they've been well laid out. Numerous PhD economists and Nobel Laureates have said why and how an LVT would be the best tax, but that hasn't gotten us any closer to achieving victory.
To pass an LVT in your town or city, you need homeowners on your side. You don't do that with discussion of tax policy, which makes most people's eyes glaze over.
We're involved with a lot of the people in direct "practical" advocacy as well and we work to craft those messages, directed at policy makers and the like. We understand there is a difference. This substack is directed at what we feel like is a gap in online discourse in the philosophical basis for Georgism.
Thank you for that insightful discussion on Georgism. I look forward to future posts!
I appreciate the Georgist philosophy, but in my opinion getting the word out and persuading people needs a concise, practical message. This is my “elevator pitch” for LVT.
“Here are three good reasons for replacing income and sales taxes with a Land Value Tax – which is like a property tax except it applies only to land, not buildings:
One, it’s simple to define and enforce. The tax would be “x” percent of assessed land value, no exceptions. You can try to hide income but you can’t hide land.
Two, it’s both progressive and pro-growth. The wealthy own most of the high priced land and would pay most of the taxes, but the tax on both income and consumption would be zero – a win-win for progressives and conservatives.
Three, LVT sends the right message. You make money by providing useful products and services, not wheeling and dealing in real estate. Building on land will not be taxed, but simply owning land will be taxed.
Ok, here’s my floor. You think about this and get back to me.”
Notice what I did not mention – all the philosophical background about the common ownership of the Earth and how monopolistic landlords are exploiting the workers. That stuff just gives LVT opponents scary sounding talking points (“A bunch of commies want to take away your land!”). It’s tax reform, not a revolution.
Au contraire, Georgists have plied the economic talking points ad nauseum for nearly a century, and it turns out no one cares. Sure, we've convinced the economists- most of them are in favor of land value taxes. But it turns out, economists don't have much political clout. The average person cares little about the efficiency of taxes- they are mostly concerned with the size of the chunk that comes out of their wallet, and what they get in return. There is not much appetite for arcane tax policy- even in Washington, what is argued over is basically just whether there should be 'more' or 'less' taxation.
What is appealing to people is the basic ethical principle of Georgism: you own what you make, no one made the Earth, therefore the Earth and its natural resources are the common property of man. That is understandable, easily illustrated, and morally compelling.
I consider myself a well-informed political junkie, but I had never heard of LVT or Single Tax until some years ago when I "discovered" Henry George via a passing reference in an obscure political publication that had apparently rented the Libertarian Party mailing list (speaking of obscure!). And I'm sure if you stop random people on the street and asked "Who was Henry George?" they would have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
In Henry's day there was no income tax. This is the time of year when people are starting to agonize over their 1040s, W2s, 1099s, etc. and might be willing to listen to an alternative - with a "sales pitch" that hits hard at the practical benefits of LVT ("Yes, we CAN abolish the income tax and the sales tax, grow the economy and fund the government - here's how!")
Hey, we are on the same side and want the same things, but how do we get there? Maybe the message needs to be tailored for different audiences. I happen to think that there is a bigger audience for a more practical, less philosophical message.
Our decision to dedicate this substack to speaking on the philosophical message of Georgism is well reasoned and intentional.
The practical aspects aren't very interesting to read about to a general audience and they've been well laid out. Numerous PhD economists and Nobel Laureates have said why and how an LVT would be the best tax, but that hasn't gotten us any closer to achieving victory.
To pass an LVT in your town or city, you need homeowners on your side. You don't do that with discussion of tax policy, which makes most people's eyes glaze over.
We're involved with a lot of the people in direct "practical" advocacy as well and we work to craft those messages, directed at policy makers and the like. We understand there is a difference. This substack is directed at what we feel like is a gap in online discourse in the philosophical basis for Georgism.
> changed the political conversion
Should be "political conversation", I think?