8 Comments
Feb 25, 2023Liked by Joseph Addington

The question is: How do we “sell” the Land Value Tax?

I would suggest two paths.

The first is the Monty Hall approach – “Let’s Make a Deal!” Abolish the hated income tax, sales tax, “property” tax, in exchange for what’s behind Door Number Two - a simple, efficient Land Value Tax. I think a legitimate, persuasive case can be made that most individuals, businesses and even big landowners would be better off taking that deal.

Secondly, I believe that LVT can have bipartisan political appeal. LVT would collect revenue in a progressive manner, placing the highest burden on wealthy landowners, while at the same time offering a ZERO marginal tax on productive (i.e. non-rent) income and investment – a win-win for liberals and conservatives.

Expand full comment

I think a modest land tax applied at a state-level, where economic development and housing goals may be able to overcome small bore land owner objections (as we’re seeing with YIMBY) is possible. My modest approach is not to take all land rents as taxes—that approach is infeasible politically and as a matter of development finance—but simply rebalancing taxation on land vs improvements is feasible and will adjust incentives over time.

Expand full comment

I don't understand why some Georgists see the YIMBY movement as complementary to Georgist interests.

Georgism is essentially about socialising the value of land use rights. YIMBYism by contrast seems to be focused on giving land use rights away for free. Georgists supporting YIMBY upzoning before getting in place instruments to socialise upzoning windfalls appear to be doing their best to ensure there's nothing left to capture, and no political likelihood of recapturing what was given away, rendering Georgism a redundant philosophy. Which it was doing very well by itself before they got involved.

Expand full comment

Australia’s capital Canberra (ACT) is perhaps the most Georgist place around. It does value capture from zoning uplift plus a decent land value tax. But of course it doesn’t solve housing problems, just raises revenue very efficiently. What that revenue is spent on still matters for housing the poor

Expand full comment

I often find Cowen's writing quite compelling, but this argument is very odd, considering how much overlap there is between self-identified YIMBYs and Georgists (including myself).

Expand full comment