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.
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.
> changed the political conversion
Should be "political conversation", I think?