The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Advocates of a land value tax (LVT), inspired by Georgist ideas, argue that taxing the unimproved value of land rather than buildings or income could curb speculation, encourage more efficient development, and reduce wealth inequality, especially in high-demand urban areas. Critics and skeptics question fairness and implementation: how farmland, conservation land, and primary residences would be treated; whether governments would really offset other taxes; and how to prevent assessments or exemptions from being captured by powerful interests. The exchange also touches on alternatives like rolling land leases, conservation easements, and service-based local taxes, highlighting that design details and political incentives would determine whether LVT performs better than existing property tax systems.

Terminology & Article Framing

  • Some discuss the term “George‑pilled” and its 4chan/Matrix meme roots, surprised to see it in a mainstream outlet.
  • Several note the NYT title is more provocative than the article itself, which they find relatively nuanced.

Core Case for Land Value Tax (LVT)

  • Proponents highlight:
    • Economic efficiency: land is fixed, so taxing it is seen as less distortionary than taxing labor, income, or buildings.
    • Reduced speculation: makes holding vacant or underused urban land costly, encouraging development and denser housing.
    • Inequality: land ownership is concentrated; land can’t be hidden offshore, so LVT is hard to evade.
  • Supporters often envision replacing or reducing other taxes, not simply adding LVT on top.

Farmers, Forestry & Rural Land

  • Repeated question: does LVT “unfairly” hit farmers/loggers who need a lot of land?
  • Common reply: tax is based on value, not area; remote farmland is much cheaper than urban land, so taxes remain low.
  • Edge case: farms at city fringes would face high taxes and likely be sold for development—seen by some as intended, by others as harmful.
  • Some jurisdictions already exempt or reduce tax on farmland; long‑rotation tree farms would likely need similar treatment.

Environment, Parks & “Fallow” Land

  • Concern: taxing land value pushes development over conservation (urban farms, habitat, urban green space).
  • Suggested mitigations: conservation easements, public ownership of parks, tax waivers for protected land.
  • Debate over whether extra decades of undeveloped private land meaningfully matter if it will be developed eventually.

Homeownership, Renters & Property Tax

  • Some want primary residences untaxed to prevent elderly or long‑time owners being “taxed out” of homes.
  • Others argue this subsidizes (usually richer) owners over renters, who then bear more of the tax burden.
  • Comparisons to current property tax:
    • Today, both land and improvements are taxed; LVT targets only unimproved land value.
    • Property tax already funds local services; shifting to LVT changes incidence, not the need for revenue.

Zoning, Fairness & Political Risk

  • A key criticism: LVT can clash with restrictive zoning—owners may be taxed as if they could develop, even when barred by law.
  • Worry that assessments can be politicized, favoring well‑connected owners, just as with existing taxes.
  • Some dislike taxing “what people own” at all, preferring direct user fees for services instead.

Alternatives & Broader Georgist Ideas

  • Proposals include:
    • Rolling or 99‑year leases from the state instead of perpetual freehold, with periodic re‑pricing.
    • Heavier taxation of “rent‑seeking” beyond land: IP, natural resources, core infrastructure.
    • Capital/wealth‑focused taxes (e.g., hedge fund tax, capital value added tax).

Economists & Ideological Skepticism

  • A University of Chicago survey is cited: a majority of surveyed economists expect LVT‑style shifts (as in Detroit) to boost local growth.
  • Others dismiss economist polling as unreliable “prediction,” and see Georgism as a “one weird trick” ideology stuck in a land‑centric 19th‑century frame.
  • Critics argue modern wealth isn’t mainly land; rich can simply move wealth into other assets if only land is taxed.