The usual Georgist story is that the problem of allocating land can be solved by taxing away all unimproved value of land (or equivalently by the government owning all land and renting it out to the highest bidder), and that won’t distort the economy, but the people who profit from current land allocation are disproportionately powerful and will block this proposal. Is that related to the problem you’re trying to solve?
Yeah. “Replace the default beneficiaries of avoidable wars with good people who use the money for good things” is a useful civic method to bear in mind but probably far from ideal. Taxation is fine, you need to do it to fund the commons, but avoidable wars seems like a weird place to draw taxes from, which nobody would consciously design? Taxes that would slow down urbanisation (by making the state complicit in increases in urban land price/costs of urban services) sound like a real bad idea.
My proposed method is, roughly, using a sort of reciprocal, egalitarian utilitarianism to figure out a good way to arrange everyone who owns a share in the city (shares will cost about what it costs to construct an apartment. Maybe different entry prices for different apartment classes.. although the cost of larger apartment tickets will have to take into account the commons costs that lower housing density imposes on the labour market), and to grant leases to their desired businesses/services. There shall be many difficulties along the way but I have not hit a wall yet.
Taxes that would slow down urbanisation (by making the state complicit in increases in urban land price/costs of urban services) sound like a real bad idea.
AFAIK the claim is that taxing land value would lead to lower rents overall, not higher. There’s some econ reasoning behind that.
The usual Georgist story is that the problem of allocating land can be solved by taxing away all unimproved value of land (or equivalently by the government owning all land and renting it out to the highest bidder), and that won’t distort the economy, but the people who profit from current land allocation are disproportionately powerful and will block this proposal. Is that related to the problem you’re trying to solve?
Yeah. “Replace the default beneficiaries of avoidable wars with good people who use the money for good things” is a useful civic method to bear in mind but probably far from ideal. Taxation is fine, you need to do it to fund the commons, but avoidable wars seems like a weird place to draw taxes from, which nobody would consciously design? Taxes that would slow down urbanisation (by making the state complicit in increases in urban land price/costs of urban services) sound like a real bad idea.
My proposed method is, roughly, using a sort of reciprocal, egalitarian utilitarianism to figure out a good way to arrange everyone who owns a share in the city (shares will cost about what it costs to construct an apartment. Maybe different entry prices for different apartment classes.. although the cost of larger apartment tickets will have to take into account the commons costs that lower housing density imposes on the labour market), and to grant leases to their desired businesses/services. There shall be many difficulties along the way but I have not hit a wall yet.
AFAIK the claim is that taxing land value would lead to lower rents overall, not higher. There’s some econ reasoning behind that.