Henry George's prose is indeed poetic - and true. He has been derided as a 'just a journalist'. Perhaps if his writing was more cumbersome and contained impenetrable gobbledygook he would be hailed as an 'economist' ?
Yes, exactly. This may as well have been written by me. I’m afraid economists, and really all scientists, have fallen into the stupid habit of seeking to be deliberately boring and uninspiring. Probably to destroy all hopes of ever changing things and to prevent the common man from using his common sense and maybe subvert all their years of precious education which they believe makes their crap smell good. I’m sure not all scientists are like this, but the status quo in charge of publishing is
Well the term economist means nothing anyway. The greatest "economist" of all times , i dont believe that but anyway , John Maynard Keynes is not an economist in his own right, he is more like a social scientist or a political activist. Hell even Marx is considered an economist...If you decide to call Henry George an economist im with you all the way, ive seen worst people being called that.
These videos have really helped me begin to build a solid foundation of knowledge regarding economics. The presenter's style is open and honest. For a topic so volatile as economics, this channel makes the value contained within accessible and easily digestible. Well done all involved.
Victorian society encountered all the modern drawbacks of capitalism. It is not just utopian nonsense. Land speculation still remains a corrupting endgame in our country
"Seeing the cat" is an expression used by Georgists for those who have suddenly understood Henry George's proposal for the Single Tax or for Land Value Taxation (LVT). But we can do better.... A More Stealthy Georgist Cat By David Harold Chester, October 2019 The Georgist cat is small and lean And often doesn’t get to be seen. It hides in the branches of an economic’s-tree So it takes a long while for you or for me, To appreciate its cute and original form That the landlords are so ready to scorn. The economic’s-tree has many fine branches (On which we contend, there are no free-lunches). Whilst the land-owning rich in the city all claim As bloated capitalists, that they’re not to blame For the gap that lays ‘twixt the poor and the wealthy, But oppose any tax to make our nation healthy. Have you heard the tale of a committee, that Thought to bell and get warning of a fat cat? But could not find a soul to apply this device, Because typically all were a council of mice! Our Georgist cat has a bell ready-fitted, (Which makes this analogy more to be pitted). This warning sound makes our ideals unwanted, For a new tax is how politicians get doubted. So the Georgist cat fails to catch any mice That pose as landlords, along with their vice. But how shall we silence the bell’s warning sound And quieten the news that our pussy’s around? Our Georgist feline is in serious error, ‘Cause its bell draws attention not only to whether Valuable sites can be ethically shared, But also the rent from a site is declared As the means to replace other kinds of taxation, Which obviously causes the landlords vexation. In the economic’s tree many other beasts lurk But are missed, after learning of Henry G’s quirk Through the cat-finder’s recently brilliant discovery. This writer seeks a new means for recovery From our politi-unacceptable claim, And stealthily project LVT once again. If we would but examine some more of the tree Alternatives are waiting there for us to see. Among them is hiding a far better way For an equivalent LVT effect, to stay In essence, without causing such evil offences To the landlords and their partitioning fences. When a property-owner decides to sell--quick The gov’ment buys its land, and not the public! Its occupant then leases it for a similar fee To the One-Tax of Henry George’s decree. Any buildings on-site should be sold as previously But without the land, on which the price grievously Had risen, with huge speculation in its advance That stopped entrepreneurs from having a chance. The cost of this land must be raised through new bonds Which the government sells and the public responds, ‘Though their interest-rate’s a bit lower than rent, Their returns are more stable than the average tenant! This process will take many years to complete-- So its financial support is no great money feat. After the lease-fees begin to collect, Gov’ments can tax less, and firmly expect To pursue this policy without change, until All the lease-fees are site-rents in the national till. With the land properly shared, the government sees That site development stays with the current lessees. Other taxes that cause so much trouble and hate Are scrapped, with great pleasure to all in the state, Except for some bankers and the tax collectors Whose actions no longer apply in these sectors. Land-rights will be shared through this simple device, By a fast-growing country that takes our advice.
I might suggest Michael Hudson book. ...and fogive them their debts Lending, disclosure and Redemption From the Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee year wtitten in conjunction with the Harvard Peabody Museum translations were misinterpreted!
Um no, our government doesn't have an allodial title. It claims eminent domain over the land. Big difference, and renders the concept of allodial title for itself and for others as null and void.
What if the land owners build the houses or make critical improvments like well water access and sewer access? Don't they sometimes contribute value in these ways? I do think it is good to crtiticise large scale absentee landlords that sit on urban spawl shit boxes and land speculators though.
In the current system (2023), if you're a landlord and you improve your property it can cause your property tax to go up because you've increased the overall value, punishing you for improving your land. In a Georgist system the land wouldn't be affected by how you improve it.
Economics distinguishes those as property rather than land value. Unimproved land value, as in if no houses are built, no wells are built, it's just the land sitting there as if no human has touched it, is what Georgists are for taxing. An empty piece of dirt in lower Manhattan is worth millions by virtue of what it's surrounded by.
Same thing, only the increase in value of the land is taxed. The improvements are not taxed. Land value only increases with demand, if there is no demand from that particular piece of land, then its value would not increase.
@@baronofbahlingen9662 interesting thanks for the reply.. can you elaborate a bit? What other features distinguishes georgism other than the question of land rent ? I believe china uses a land leasing system , just fact checked it and it seems to hold true... I can accept nuances that may deviate from this though.
@@distortiontildeafness well you said private property and not rents. I would be willing to believe rents are taxed in China, but they do have de facto private property. I would not call China Georgist because it is not ideologically Georgist, it is inspired by a Marxist ideology (albeit an extremely warped and contradictory one) and I think that alone disqualifies it. You don’t have to go far to find explicit Georgist influence though, as Taiwan, or the Republic of China, has an LVT system which is directly inspired from George. As the presenter stated, Georgism is in contrast to socialism in that it often favours less restrictive economic systems, which is not so much the case in China. I would say even if such a tax exists there, the purpose for it existing is likely not Georgist in nature.
If by "China" you mean the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) then sure. The founding father of the Republic of China, Sun-Yat Sen is heavily influenced by George. One of the founding principle out the "Three Principles of the People" (ROC's founding principles) is a land value tax founded welfare system. Till this day, Republic of China still has a high land value tax, which is very important when your entire country is crammed on such a small island as Taiwan.
Governments can sell land, or rather the 'rights' to the land which would be taxed according to its value. Its no different than selling mining rights to companies extracting resources from the ground.
So basically tenants and entrepreneurs want to buy the land except of renting basically trying to put the landlord out of business but if somebody try to buy there business from them that they dont want to sell they would be pissed
the jews werent chose because they were gods favorites ... they were chosen in the sense of conscripted as solldiers in an army for the purpose of conquering territories that Yahweh coveted ... the whole old testament is an account of of the relationship between the people of israel and the Elohim ... wrongly translated in english as God ...
Geoism is awesome, real estate is unearned wealth caused by proximity of people......the veyr thing that should be used for defense cops courts....of cours erun government 99% cheaper....end fed...end income tax of course end public school......cancel most of case law and all regulations....enforce proeprty but tax rent over rate out in countryside...let mass housing with cheap room abound....build thorium atomic....end inmport expert tax
Owners of the land do create land value. If a private school is build in a poor area the land around it gains value the community has nothing to do with it, same with infrastructure providing defense and general economic growth and prosperity. In fact if anything, communities couldnt possibly do all these cause they would never agree 100%, for people to do that you would need to form a goverment which rarely gets more than 60% approval which immediately means you are only satisfying about 60% of the peoples needs, while also putting a very tiny minority of people in charge of creating those things. That tiny minority will create what they feel is right ultimately making the land value to 100% for the politicians that made their living from practically owning that land and you also lose a huge amount of the potential value that the land could have if the markets could take over. Think about this simple example...If i have a kiosk but i have no road to my kiosk and no sidewalk for people to park and safely come to my kiosk, do i really need goverment to do the infrastructure for me? Its not like goverment is actively building roads anyway 90% of the time those contracts go to private firms, why wouldn't i build a sidewalk infront of my business, with my own money? It seemed like an interesting idea at first when i heard about it but im less impressed now.
@Angelo Martinez Not true actually. Schools need large plots of land. Those large plots of land, in urban areas and especially in upper middle class neighborhoods cost too much. The schools need to be easily accessible, safe and fairly cheap to build. In Cyprus most private schools are situated on the outskirts of the city or completely outside of the city, where people can get large plots of land for fairly cheap. The Grammar school of Nicosia which is arguably the best school in Cyprus was built in a small village outside of Nicosia the capital. That village now is one of the biggest in Cyprus and the land around the school has gained 2x to 3x the value. Land value definitely impacts residents education but that's not what i was replying to. I was replying to the stupid idea that owners of the land do not create value. Now im not sure what government and public funding for public schools have to do with what i said. What im trying to say is that land owners do give value to their land and to the land around their land.
@Angelo Martinez Public schools dont bring value simply because public schools are bad. As i mentioned, a plot of land has alot of potential value. Value ranging from 1000 dollars to 100 million dollars. The ownership of the land is what determines what value the land will have. A farmer can have a land worth millions to a hotel owner but he is only extracting 1000 dollars worth because he doesnt know how to maximize the lands potential. The lands potential though can only be maximized through ownership. Who will build a permanent structure in a land that doesnt belong to them? The idea in the video is that ownership of land doesn't create value but as we know ownership of land is the only true creator of value. A land on the beach has more "potential" value but realized value is only what, the owner makes of the land.
Its like brainwashed commie Chinese saying Chinese commie Party does help Mainland Chinese getting some rich so we should thank CCP instead overthrow it.lol
The community (incl landowners) is the ONLY source of value. The agreement is always 100%, whatever shows up in prices is "value". The community does not mean "everyone in 10 miles square", it describes every contact diffused throughout the world. It's a general statement "the community generates land value". If nobody goes to the school, it has no value.
How can you say the land owner does not create value? They pay rates etc. That is revenue for the council etc. They must maintain the structures or their compliance on the land as an example. Like a shop. The landowner can choose to support ethical businesses, care of the community issues etc.. We still have common land, local parks, reserves, national parks etc.
The landowner might create value in other ways, for example they might also create capital, own a business etc, but nothing they do increases the land value (in most cases) since that value is determined by its location and the factors mentioned above.
The land value is influenced by all sorts of things. The landowners may increase the land value by renovating the properties or businesses on the land etc. Hence making the land more desirable... Hence increasing its desirability... Hence increasing its value.
@@kingfillins4117 that's property value not land value. Land value taxes would not tax property value only land value. One way you can figure out the land value of a property is by demolishing everything on it and then selling it on the open market. In order to levy a LVT you have to estimate land value (there are various ways to do so, it's not anymore difficult than assessing property value, which we already do anyway). So land value taxes will not discourage you from improving your land, only tax the value you get as a landowner from the surrounding community and the natural properties of your land. As the economy grows so do land values.
Right, sure, though you are missing the point I was making... the state of a location can be influenced by the types of property or how those properties are maintained including other amenities in the area. These things can influence the land value.
You are making mess between economic and spiritual matter. Science books🧪 and religious books 📚 are 2 different things. Do you understand?? You are mixing up 2 train 🚂 tracks without any knowledge.
If you believe in religion you should believe your economy is in line with your values. To do otherwise is to elevate politics above universal goodness.
Your understanding of the Old Testament is laughable. In Old Testament Israel, specific families or tribes owned the land, they could rent it out and be paid with food that was farmed from the land. Private land ownership has lead to unbound prosperity. China doesn't allow for private ownership and people can only lease it from the govt. This leads to people not fully investing in their properties. If you don't own the land, you don't respect it.
Land owners do nothing to increase value of land? What planet do you live on? Drilling a well, putting in a septic or paying for utities to be run to a structure doesn't increase the value of a private property?....leveling or deforestation of a lot of land does not increase it's value? Simplyjng putting something nice or keeping the property looking nice so others want to live near it does not increase the value of the property? I don't completely understand the concept of "the remedy" I can't find any videos thar give nuanced explanations of it, but half the stuff you said is horse shit.....Air belongs to the people because it is so abundant it has no value i.e. supply WAY outstrips demand.....when farmers first moved across the country the land that feeds the world today was almost useless....it was generations of work and improvement BY THE LAND OWNER that made it suitable and valuable for growing crops. I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems like this idea would bankrupt farmers, as they use own a lot of land to produce enough value, from the land that THEY IMPROVE every year by working it.
Henry George's prose is indeed poetic - and true. He has been derided as a 'just a journalist'. Perhaps if his writing was more cumbersome and contained impenetrable gobbledygook he would be hailed as an 'economist' ?
Yes, exactly. This may as well have been written by me. I’m afraid economists, and really all scientists, have fallen into the stupid habit of seeking to be deliberately boring and uninspiring. Probably to destroy all hopes of ever changing things and to prevent the common man from using his common sense and maybe subvert all their years of precious education which they believe makes their crap smell good. I’m sure not all scientists are like this, but the status quo in charge of publishing is
Well the term economist means nothing anyway. The greatest "economist" of all times , i dont believe that but anyway , John Maynard Keynes is not an economist in his own right, he is more like a social scientist or a political activist. Hell even Marx is considered an economist...If you decide to call Henry George an economist im with you all the way, ive seen worst people being called that.
So true
@@nikolastapakkis7021 Karl marx did have a lot of technical writing on the economy, I’m not a marxist but its worth reading if ur into henry george
These videos have really helped me begin to build a solid foundation of knowledge regarding economics. The presenter's style is open and honest. For a topic so volatile as economics, this channel makes the value contained within accessible and easily digestible. Well done all involved.
I listen to this video every night
Economic rent extends beyond land. It includes government grants of monopolies in many forms. i.e. exclusive trade rights, patents, etc
Victorian society encountered all the modern drawbacks of capitalism. It is not just utopian nonsense. Land speculation still remains a corrupting endgame in our country
"Seeing the cat" is an expression used by Georgists for those who have suddenly understood Henry George's proposal for the Single Tax or for Land Value Taxation (LVT). But we can do better....
A More Stealthy Georgist Cat By David Harold Chester, October 2019
The Georgist cat is small and lean
And often doesn’t get to be seen.
It hides in the branches of an economic’s-tree
So it takes a long while for you or for me,
To appreciate its cute and original form
That the landlords are so ready to scorn.
The economic’s-tree has many fine branches
(On which we contend, there are no free-lunches).
Whilst the land-owning rich in the city all claim
As bloated capitalists, that they’re not to blame
For the gap that lays ‘twixt the poor and the wealthy,
But oppose any tax to make our nation healthy.
Have you heard the tale of a committee, that
Thought to bell and get warning of a fat cat?
But could not find a soul to apply this device,
Because typically all were a council of mice!
Our Georgist cat has a bell ready-fitted,
(Which makes this analogy more to be pitted).
This warning sound makes our ideals unwanted,
For a new tax is how politicians get doubted.
So the Georgist cat fails to catch any mice
That pose as landlords, along with their vice.
But how shall we silence the bell’s warning sound
And quieten the news that our pussy’s around?
Our Georgist feline is in serious error,
‘Cause its bell draws attention not only to whether
Valuable sites can be ethically shared,
But also the rent from a site is declared
As the means to replace other kinds of taxation,
Which obviously causes the landlords vexation.
In the economic’s tree many other beasts lurk
But are missed, after learning of Henry G’s quirk
Through the cat-finder’s recently brilliant discovery.
This writer seeks a new means for recovery
From our politi-unacceptable claim,
And stealthily project LVT once again.
If we would but examine some more of the tree
Alternatives are waiting there for us to see.
Among them is hiding a far better way
For an equivalent LVT effect, to stay
In essence, without causing such evil offences
To the landlords and their partitioning fences.
When a property-owner decides to sell--quick
The gov’ment buys its land, and not the public!
Its occupant then leases it for a similar fee
To the One-Tax of Henry George’s decree.
Any buildings on-site should be sold as previously
But without the land, on which the price grievously
Had risen, with huge speculation in its advance
That stopped entrepreneurs from having a chance.
The cost of this land must be raised through new bonds
Which the government sells and the public responds,
‘Though their interest-rate’s a bit lower than rent,
Their returns are more stable than the average tenant!
This process will take many years to complete--
So its financial support is no great money feat.
After the lease-fees begin to collect,
Gov’ments can tax less, and firmly expect
To pursue this policy without change, until
All the lease-fees are site-rents in the national till.
With the land properly shared, the government sees
That site development stays with the current lessees.
Other taxes that cause so much trouble and hate
Are scrapped, with great pleasure to all in the state,
Except for some bankers and the tax collectors
Whose actions no longer apply in these sectors.
Land-rights will be shared through this simple device,
By a fast-growing country that takes our advice.
I wish I could work in this school of social sciences... 🙏
Me too!
Me three
Damnit. I came here looking for info on Georgism. Yet most of this is Old Testament studies.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
This is the WORD
I might suggest Michael Hudson book. ...and fogive them their debts
Lending, disclosure and Redemption From the Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee year wtitten in conjunction with the Harvard Peabody Museum
translations were misinterpreted!
Um no, our government doesn't have an allodial title. It claims eminent domain over the land. Big difference, and renders the concept of allodial title for itself and for others as null and void.
What if the land owners build the houses or make critical improvments like well water access and sewer access? Don't they sometimes contribute value in these ways? I do think it is good to crtiticise large scale absentee landlords that sit on urban spawl shit boxes and land speculators though.
The tax is only applied on the value of the land, while the property owner would own all improvements
The land value tax is a tax on the unimproved value of land.
In the current system (2023), if you're a landlord and you improve your property it can cause your property tax to go up because you've increased the overall value, punishing you for improving your land. In a Georgist system the land wouldn't be affected by how you improve it.
Economics distinguishes those as property rather than land value. Unimproved land value, as in if no houses are built, no wells are built, it's just the land sitting there as if no human has touched it, is what Georgists are for taxing. An empty piece of dirt in lower Manhattan is worth millions by virtue of what it's surrounded by.
"Is it right?" "Will it work?" - what about "How do we impliment it?" This video is now 7 years old. What happened?
I'll start accepting Ben Shapiro's "Judaeo-Christian values" when he proposes a jubilee system
Most underrated comment.
until then, heathen rampage. I'll let Ben know you called
Judeo-christian is an oxymoron
How come christian "fundamentalists" don't talk about this?
They've been duped by the wiles of libertarianism and growth for the sake of growth
What about the differing effect on land values of each person's labor?
Same thing, only the increase in value of the land is taxed. The improvements are not taxed. Land value only increases with demand, if there is no demand from that particular piece of land, then its value would not increase.
This guys delivers like zack galifianakis
Is china's system georgism based? There's no private property of land if I recall correctly
Not every system which considers land a collective property is Georgist; also that is not in practice true in China regardless.
@@baronofbahlingen9662 interesting thanks for the reply.. can you elaborate a bit? What other features distinguishes georgism other than the question of land rent ?
I believe china uses a land leasing system , just fact checked it and it seems to hold true... I can accept nuances that may deviate from this though.
@@distortiontildeafness well you said private property and not rents. I would be willing to believe rents are taxed in China, but they do have de facto private property. I would not call China Georgist because it is not ideologically Georgist, it is inspired by a Marxist ideology (albeit an extremely warped and contradictory one) and I think that alone disqualifies it. You don’t have to go far to find explicit Georgist influence though, as Taiwan, or the Republic of China, has an LVT system which is directly inspired from George.
As the presenter stated, Georgism is in contrast to socialism in that it often favours less restrictive economic systems, which is not so much the case in China. I would say even if such a tax exists there, the purpose for it existing is likely not Georgist in nature.
If by "China" you mean the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) then sure. The founding father of the Republic of China, Sun-Yat Sen is heavily influenced by George. One of the founding principle out the "Three Principles of the People" (ROC's founding principles) is a land value tax founded welfare system. Till this day, Republic of China still has a high land value tax, which is very important when your entire country is crammed on such a small island as Taiwan.
@@baronofbahlingen9662 There's no such thing as Ideological Georgism, nobody would ever say "the Georgist Republic of Taiwan".
why are you citing the bible as if it's some kind of authority? On the contrary it has been a source of misery.
The Richard Stallman of economics?
Just as a private owner may rent or sell, why don't Georgists believe that government may sell land?
Governments can sell land, or rather the 'rights' to the land which would be taxed according to its value. Its no different than selling mining rights to companies extracting resources from the ground.
Ever hear of "tax sales"? The local government sells land all the time.
Ownership is certainty of access and control.
So basically tenants and entrepreneurs want to buy the land except of renting basically trying to put the landlord out of business but if somebody try to buy there business from them that they dont want to sell they would be pissed
the jews werent chose because they were gods favorites ... they were chosen in the sense of conscripted as solldiers in an army for the purpose of conquering territories that Yahweh coveted ... the whole old testament is an account of of the relationship between the people of israel and the Elohim ... wrongly translated in english as God ...
Geoism is awesome, real estate is unearned wealth caused by proximity of people......the veyr thing that should be used for defense cops courts....of cours erun government 99% cheaper....end fed...end income tax of course end public school......cancel most of case law and all regulations....enforce proeprty but tax rent over rate out in countryside...let mass housing with cheap room abound....build thorium atomic....end inmport expert tax
Owners of the land do create land value. If a private school is build in a poor area the land around it gains value the community has nothing to do with it, same with infrastructure providing defense and general economic growth and prosperity. In fact if anything, communities couldnt possibly do all these cause they would never agree 100%, for people to do that you would need to form a goverment which rarely gets more than 60% approval which immediately means you are only satisfying about 60% of the peoples needs, while also putting a very tiny minority of people in charge of creating those things. That tiny minority will create what they feel is right ultimately making the land value to 100% for the politicians that made their living from practically owning that land and you also lose a huge amount of the potential value that the land could have if the markets could take over. Think about this simple example...If i have a kiosk but i have no road to my kiosk and no sidewalk for people to park and safely come to my kiosk, do i really need goverment to do the infrastructure for me? Its not like goverment is actively building roads anyway 90% of the time those contracts go to private firms, why wouldn't i build a sidewalk infront of my business, with my own money? It seemed like an interesting idea at first when i heard about it but im less impressed now.
@Angelo Martinez Not true actually. Schools need large plots of land. Those large plots of land, in urban areas and especially in upper middle class neighborhoods cost too much. The schools need to be easily accessible, safe and fairly cheap to build. In Cyprus most private schools are situated on the outskirts of the city or completely outside of the city, where people can get large plots of land for fairly cheap. The Grammar school of Nicosia which is arguably the best school in Cyprus was built in a small village outside of Nicosia the capital. That village now is one of the biggest in Cyprus and the land around the school has gained 2x to 3x the value. Land value definitely impacts residents education but that's not what i was replying to. I was replying to the stupid idea that owners of the land do not create value. Now im not sure what government and public funding for public schools have to do with what i said. What im trying to say is that land owners do give value to their land and to the land around their land.
@Angelo Martinez Public schools dont bring value simply because public schools are bad. As i mentioned, a plot of land has alot of potential value. Value ranging from 1000 dollars to 100 million dollars. The ownership of the land is what determines what value the land will have. A farmer can have a land worth millions to a hotel owner but he is only extracting 1000 dollars worth because he doesnt know how to maximize the lands potential. The lands potential though can only be maximized through ownership. Who will build a permanent structure in a land that doesnt belong to them? The idea in the video is that ownership of land doesn't create value but as we know ownership of land is the only true creator of value. A land on the beach has more "potential" value but realized value is only what, the owner makes of the land.
Its like brainwashed commie Chinese saying Chinese commie Party does help Mainland Chinese getting some rich so we should thank CCP instead overthrow it.lol
The community (incl landowners) is the ONLY source of value. The agreement is always 100%, whatever shows up in prices is "value". The community does not mean "everyone in 10 miles square", it describes every contact diffused throughout the world. It's a general statement "the community generates land value". If nobody goes to the school, it has no value.
Sorry you lost me at “the Old Testament”
I made it a bit further, I could no longer take it seriously when he called it "history".
ua-cam.com/video/RAA1xgTTw9w/v-deo.html
I think he was examining historical examples of how land was governed in history.
How can you say the land owner does not create value? They pay rates etc. That is revenue for the council etc. They must maintain the structures or their compliance on the land as an example. Like a shop. The landowner can choose to support ethical businesses, care of the community issues etc.. We still have common land, local parks, reserves, national parks etc.
The landowner might create value in other ways, for example they might also create capital, own a business etc, but nothing they do increases the land value (in most cases) since that value is determined by its location and the factors mentioned above.
The land value is influenced by all sorts of things. The landowners may increase the land value by renovating the properties or businesses on the land etc. Hence making the land more desirable... Hence increasing its desirability... Hence increasing its value.
@@kingfillins4117 that's property value not land value. Land value taxes would not tax property value only land value. One way you can figure out the land value of a property is by demolishing everything on it and then selling it on the open market. In order to levy a LVT you have to estimate land value (there are various ways to do so, it's not anymore difficult than assessing property value, which we already do anyway). So land value taxes will not discourage you from improving your land, only tax the value you get as a landowner from the surrounding community and the natural properties of your land. As the economy grows so do land values.
Right, sure, though you are missing the point I was making... the state of a location can be influenced by the types of property or how those properties are maintained including other amenities in the area. These things can influence the land value.
@@kingfillins4117 Right, factors determined by the community
This isn't economics. It's bible study.
You are making mess between economic and spiritual matter. Science books🧪 and religious books 📚 are 2 different things. Do you understand?? You are mixing up 2 train 🚂 tracks without any knowledge.
You are an idiot
He's giving historical basis. It's not spiritual at all. Not exploring how current situation came to be would mean you cannot understand it now.
If you believe in religion you should believe your economy is in line with your values. To do otherwise is to elevate politics above universal goodness.
Your understanding of the Old Testament is laughable. In Old Testament Israel, specific families or tribes owned the land, they could rent it out and be paid with food that was farmed from the land. Private land ownership has lead to unbound prosperity. China doesn't allow for private ownership and people can only lease it from the govt. This leads to people not fully investing in their properties. If you don't own the land, you don't respect it.
It’s a bird!! It’s a plane!!! No its….. its………. the point flying right over your head.
Land owners do nothing to increase value of land? What planet do you live on? Drilling a well, putting in a septic or paying for utities to be run to a structure doesn't increase the value of a private property?....leveling or deforestation of a lot of land does not increase it's value? Simplyjng putting something nice or keeping the property looking nice so others want to live near it does not increase the value of the property? I don't completely understand the concept of "the remedy" I can't find any videos thar give nuanced explanations of it, but half the stuff you said is horse shit.....Air belongs to the people because it is so abundant it has no value i.e. supply WAY outstrips demand.....when farmers first moved across the country the land that feeds the world today was almost useless....it was generations of work and improvement BY THE LAND OWNER that made it suitable and valuable for growing crops. I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems like this idea would bankrupt farmers, as they use own a lot of land to produce enough value, from the land that THEY IMPROVE every year by working it.