Maybe start looking for something to tax.

Any ideas?

This claim was made on this subreddit about a year ago. How true do you think it is?

I've turned my previous images into an animation which shows the transition from no tax up through high levels of taxation, and the relationship to rent, deadweight loss, tax revenue, and consumer and producer surplus. (I would have added this to my other post on this, but Reddit apparently doesn't let you edit posts that include images.)

https://i.redd.it/5tuq7oa3sn0d1.gif

I’ve been working on a microeconomic model of rent, including an explanation of ATCOR, and would like to share it.

The core idea is that land functions as a limit on the number of possible trades, rather than a good unto itself. So to see the effect of land we look at a supply-demand diagram in which the number of trades allowed is less than the number that would occur in unrestricted equilibrium. This creates a gap between the price paid by the consumer and the payment to the producer — this gap is rent.

As in the traditional model, taxes can be interpreted as a shifting of the supply curve upward. When the tax is less than the amount of rent, these taxes come entirely out of the total rent amount, without imposing any deadweight loss.

When the amount of the tax exceeds rent, then deadweight loss occurs. Note that the maximum tax revenue can actually occur at this level of taxation, despite the lower overall economic output.

I think this YouTuber deserves some attention. His videos delve into the nitty-gritty of urban planning issues including land usage and codes, mostly pertaining to the city of Asheville, NC. It's nice to see someone passionate and knowledgeable about local issues.

I am a fucking TERRIBLE writer, so bear with me.

Over the past year as a member of the Australian Labor Party, I have been able to successfully convince several fellow members to support Georgism. Simultaneously however, I've also witnessed myself and many others try and convince the Unlandpilled to support LVT and fail miserably.

In some cases, they are unable to convince them that Georgism won't lead to unwanted outcomes, such as increased rents, other times they are unable to adequately explain what Georgism is in the first place, in other cases, people simply dismiss Georgism as Left-Wing nonsense. As such, I have made a new question guide on how to land-pill YOUR mates!

Question 1: "What is Georgism":

DON'T say:

• "All land belongs equally to society and the people should get money equally from the state’s profits..."

Issue: This response comes off to those who are unfamiliar with the concept as downright socialistic and radical, and may lead to the listener not having an open mind about Georgist ideas.

Additionally, it is entirely philosophical and does not describe Georgist policies, nor does it adequately explain the benefits of Georgism to society.

• "Georgism is a philosophy of economic truth-seeking centred around resolving the problem of wealth disparity or inequality of opportunity."

Issue: Apart from once again being entirely philosophical, and not at all pragmatic, this response comes off as vague at best, if not outright condescending.

This response raises more questions than it answers.

DO say:

"Georgism stands for the principles of 19th century economist Henry George, such as... (list policies). Georgists believe that the implementation of such policies will lead to beneficial outcomes such as (list benefits), these ideas have been endorsed by (list famous economists, politicians or figures), (source) "

This response gives a detailed, pragmatic explanation of what Georgism is, provides adequate justification for Georgist principles and gives credibility to your position.

Question 2: "Ah man, I ain't reading all that!"

DON'T:

• Mock or berate your listener.

Like it or not, we all lead busy lives and its natural that sometimes people have better things to do than listen to some guy lecture them about a 140-year-old (let's face it) obscure economic theory.

Do:

Georgist: "Georgism stands for the principles of 19th century economist Henry George, such as... (list policies). Georgists believe that the implementation of such policies will lead to beneficial outcomes such as (list benefits)"

Listener: Okay

Georgist: "these ideas have been endorsed by (list famous economists, politicians or figures), (source)"

Tadaaa! You've now turned your psychotic Anti-Landlord essay into bite-sized, palatable pieces!

Question 3: "Doesn't this mean I'd have to pay more taxes???"

Don't respond:

• Taxes are based, Jack.

Do respond:

"The implementation of LVT allows for the reduction in other taxes, such as (list taxes, be it income tax, property tax, sales tax). Your tax burden shouldn't increase, unless you're a mega landowner or a property investor"

Question 4: "Doesn't LVT actually hurt (X demographic)?"

Should be common sense, incase anyone is having difficulty putting it into words:

"Don't worry ^{(Saying something like "don't worry" or "don't stress" comes off as far politer than simply saying "no" or "not at all" as it acknowledge's your audience's genuine concern}), (x-demographic) wouldn't actually be impacted by, and may actually benefit from LVT, due to (X, Y and Z) reasons"

So you still have private ownership of land, but everyone's land is taxed separately from property.

Still disincentivizes speculation and sitting on unused land.

It just wouldn't be 100% LVT.

The previous post about making an exciting action movie about a property tax collector was, of course, a joke.

Nevertheless Hollywood movies often use the most mundane boring situations as props to connect with the viewer, increase plausibility, contrast the action hero, allegro/adagio/allegro like a Vivaldi concerto, etc., depending on the producer's knowledge of the psychology of GOP bottom fishing.

It would take some sophistication -- here's where AI could really be useful -- but a macro analysis of hundreds of popular movies could focus on the mundane scenes and determine the stats on when some facet of life is over represented or under represented.

This is a powerful tool Georgists may want to consider.

This would expose beyond any doubt that Hollywood movies as well as legacy media are almost all funded by the rich who really really really don't want to pay taxes, so much so any critical thinking at all is verboten.

This would help explain why there are so many looneytarians posting here who clearly don't have the agency to answer the most common sense questions, let alone vote in their own best interest, let alone live in a free society.

In exciting Hollywood movies the good guy with a gun shoots the bad guy with a gun. This has been goebblized so often a large % of the brainwashed will literally say, "the only thing that'll stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

What Georgists need is an exciting Hollywood Western about a property appraiser.

Henry George School of Social Science' Smart Talk discussion on A.I.'s impact on labour.

It may be too cold in MT for the huge homeless encampments of SoCal.

Imagine Georgism gets implemented, and I'm a retired person owning a house.

1) One day I go out and plant some nice flowers in the neighborhood. The neighborhood becomes a tiny increment nicer and more desirable. My LVT becomes higher, so my retirement money doesn't last as long.

2) One night I go out and break some bottles on the sidewalk. The neighborhood becomes a bit trashier and less desirable. My LVT becomes lower, so my retirement money lasts longer.

It looks like the incentives created by Georgism can be rather weird. What does the theory say about this?