Daily reminder that Georgism is the most redpilled economic philosophy that was completely destroyed by the Jews because of how threatening it was to them.
There is a better way to manage society than to fall two sides of the same Jew - (((capitalism))) and (((socialism)))
Other urls found in this thread:
geolib.pair.com
schalkenbach.org
bea.gov
youtube.com
bloomberg.com
twitter.com
Bump
Hello friend
georgism is literally a tax plan
it isn't an economic system
you're right tho, we should switch to a 100% land value tax
it should be done slowly over the course of 10 years to allow for a smooth transition
Lol very true. Lolberts are truly sickening.
>a 100% land value tax
i mean only have a land value tax, no other taxes
the tax rate shouldn't be 100%, that'd be ludicrous
You wont get many replies... ive tried this before. No one really knows how to argue against Georgism as its been forced out of the mainstream for quite a while now.
Another difficulty is that its very hard to explain the concept of economic rent
Redpill me on Georgism, goy. Be specific.
I only call it an economic system because it would change society so much (in a positive way) that it would feel like we changed economic systems. You're right though. It's simply just a tax. Which just goes to show how easy it would be to implement.
Here is a neat essay about how confused and backwards right wing or "royal libertarians" are
>(((socialism)))
> not (((communism)))
low level bantz friend.
You mean Geolibertarianism or just Georgism?
please tell me how it works so I can figure out how to exploit it
Lol it's weird isn't it? Progress and Poverty was one of the best selling books in America at some point in the late 1800s and early 1900s it sold millions of copies. Henry George has influenced Albert Einstein, Roosevelt, Keynes, H.G Wells, Oppenheimer, Tolstoy, etc. Yet nobody even knows of him today.
Sickening. We must bring Georgism into the mainstream discussion again. (((They))) want to fool us to think that no alternative exists so we feel trapped into two shifty systems that enslave us.
I'm intrigued. So, how does it work? Do land owners get screwed? Or is the state the sole land owner? If the state is the sole land owner, how to prevent substandard housing, maintenance, utilities, etc?
So what we pay if we own land??? and that is the only tax??
OK wall of text incoming but their really isnt a simple way to lay out Georges ideology
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world and others no right. . . . . . any one human being, could he concentrate in himself the individual rights to the land of any country, could expel therefrom all the rest of its inhabitants; and could he thus concentrate the individual rights to the whole surface of the globe, he alone of all the teeming population of the earth would have the right to live. And what upon this supposition would occur is, upon a smaller scale, realized in actual fact. . . . The comparative handful of pro- prietors who own the surface of the British Islands would be doing only what English law gives them full power to do, and what many of them have done on a smaller scale already, were they to exclude the millions of British people from their native islands. And such an exclusion . . . would not be a whit more repugnant to natural right than the spectacle now presented, of the vast body of the British people being compelled to pay such enormous sums to a few of their number for the privilege of being permitted to live upon and use the land which they so fondly call their own; which is endeared to them by memories so tender and so glorious, and for which they are held in duty bound, if need be, to spill their blood and lay down their lives. . . .
Place one hundred men on an island from which there is no escape, and whether you make one of these men the absolute owner of the other ninety-nine, or the absolute owner of the soil of the island, will make no difference either to him or to them. It was not nobility that gave land, but the possession of land that gave nobility.
schalkenbach.org
I learned yesterday they have done that to another book
>200 Years Together Russian-Jewish History – Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn
Can't even get it in English.
>They own all the publishing houses. That is also what happened to respected historian David Irving. But he had enough money to publish it himself.
> land value tax
> taxing only those who own land
> most people DONT own land, so they can vote for tax increases that only impact "somebody else"
> taxes shoot so high all land becomes govt property due to tax siezures
> now we tax investors!!
> rinse and repeat
> eventually youll be the last "other guy" left to tax.
taxes should be applied evenly, and without prejudice or ulterior motive.
the ONLY way to tax fairly is through a flat sales tax.
> buy land: taxes 1 time for the purchase
> buy a car: taxed one time for the purchase
> buy stock in a company: taxed one time for the purchase
> buy food: taxed one time for the purchase
> rent an apartment : taxed one time, for each purchase (every time you pay your rent dummy)
eventually morons who currently rent or lease their car or home will realize that owning something is better than renting, and will break away from the poverty trap.
Just look it up
depends on the actual value of the land not including improvements
so city center pays a ton and the boonies pays hardly anything
Estimates suggest
that this 1.89 billion acres of land are collectively worth approximately $23 trillion in
2009 (current prices), with 24% of the land area and $1.8 trillion of the value held by
the federal government.
bea.gov
>there's no such thing as property but my personal money can be stolen
socialist """"""""""logic""""""""""
Or we can return to our founding and allow only land owners to vote. Although these days, some jew will end up selling 1in square parcels to nigs so they can rig the ballot. In this case we just have to bar Jews from owning property.
>finders keepers losers weepers
3 year old logic
Why even have a fucking thread numbnuts?
Georgism is not against private property you kike and neither is that meme. It just shows the hypocrisy of lolberts.
What you are taught as "capitalism" results in inequality and inefficiency because it lacks a theory to manage common resources. It doesn't even recognize that there is such a thing as common resources. Georgism corrects this flaw by not only recognizing common resources like land, minerals, water, fish stocks as such, but adds that by managing these resources with user fees, you can get rid of all other taxation and remove impediments to economic development. So under Georgism, regular folk are mostly taxed in proportion to the value of any land they may possess. The vast majority of people would pay a lot less than they currently pay in income, payroll and consumption taxes, but absentee landlords would pay a lot more, and the mortgage business of banks would be an order of magnitude smaller, because land taxes cancel the benefits of homeownership as an investment. The system also discourages the inefficient use of land, controlling sprawl and inefficient farming practices. Housing and transportation costs would be greatly reduced, thus allowing for a greater equality of opportunity. A Universal basic income (UBI) could provide for those unable to work.
Never heard of Henry George before but I just looked him up and he seems to echo many of my own thoughts.
Compare the parts of Capitalism and Georgism. The "Rent" part that goes to Society is bigger than the part of "To Society" in the Capitalism area.
>being this much of a cuck
But we can suppose that some men deserve to have resources allocated to them more than others. There are differentials in skill and intelligence that are immutable. The right of greater wealth is with those who are skilled and intelligent; they perform best in a free market anyway.
What exactly is the picture supposed to depict?
To get introduced to the topic, threads are a horribly inefficient way to learn about deep philosophical complex topics that require reading through something like a book and not text bombs or infographic dumps.
This may not be entirely related, but let me explain.
I am planning a sci fi novel, and I've been pondering various governmental and economic systems which would be used in the setting. A brief description: the population of earth has been vastly reduced to about 900 million - 1.1 billion people due to an engineered synthetic virus which was programmed to kill many 'undesirables'. Because of this most of the large countries we have now no longer exist and instead governments have mostly reverted into a kind of city-state structure, with most of surviving humanity congregating in certain very populous cities around the world. This leads to most of the land on earth being claimed by no governmental entity, a kind of no-mans land. This land is lightly governed by an international organization composed of representatives from any city state which chooses to join. This organization has absolutely no jurisdiction in lands claimed by city state powers.
How would Georgism fit into a massively depopulated planet with plenty of lightly-governed land, wherein people are only compelled to follow some basic environments protection regulations
I like the idea of not having income taxes. I always thought it strange that I could earn tons of money but not be very wealthy and get taxed out the ass just because my skills are valuable. It makes it more difficult for a highly skilled person to become wealthy.
Meanwhile some kid who inherited a mansion but has no skill and minimal income wouldn't get taxed much at all but would still be very wealthy.
A system where only property was taxed would get very close to a meritocracy. Only those with the skill to earn a large amount of income would be able to afford the taxes imposed on property ownership.
For the average individual aka the vast majority of the populous the amount that they keep to themselves is actually larger.
Well I'm sorry I replied. I should have just let this thread die in peace then.
A tax based on land use is novel. Doesn't New Hampshire have something to that effect? No state income or sales tax, but a very high property tax? idk, I'm from Texas.
Spot the JIDF.
>A system where only property was taxed would get very close to a meritocracy. Only those with the skill to earn a large amount of income would be able to afford the taxes imposed on property ownership.
Spot on. This is the closest we'll get to actual meritocracy and people who earn money in productive ways that benefit society and the free market will keep more of what they earn instead of getting taxed on their own productivity and hard work.
You've just explained why is wrong and now i dont have to.. thanks
worth a watch if you have a little time
Joseph Stiglitz on Inequality
youtube.com
well i fucked up i didnt mean to reference the scifi nutters post explains why is wrong
What the fuck I love Georgeism now.
Now why would you sage a thread thats actually about politics? Busy spamming trump memes and antifa doxing? Get fucked shill
break the paradigm
t. Schlomo Shekelberg
> tfw numerous Nobel economists have talked about and endorsed Georgism and a land value tax
> Specifically George Stiglitz, perhaps one of the most respected economists in the world, who's shown that it's the most efficient tax system mathematically in allocating economic utility
bloomberg.com
Okay last post for me as ive got to get to work so i can pay my ((landlord))
keep on Georgposting, invade libertarian right threads and make them see the light. ill be around
One more to confuse the pure capitalists
There would have to be an immense farm subsidy, or else be under threat of an agrarian revolt, or famine.
Yer it's amazing how influential he was. Marx, Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, Schumpeter etc. Have all responded to his ideas and yet we never hear of him.
I'm assuming the land would be taxed not by pure acreage but by it's value. Since obviously 100 acres of farmland is worth much less than 100 acres of prime New York City real estate.
> Implying farms don't already get immense subsidies
>For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world and others no right.
I disagree, and most people disagree in practice. We give some lives more value than others. Whether we should or not is irrelevant.
I like the idea, but it still seems pretty our in the sky to me. What's stopping them from doing as they please once all the land is owned by a few? This sounds a lot like a great way to introduce wealthy multinational conglomerates to buy out all the land, creating a monopoly that can, will, and has been, abused.
Milton Friedman also said a similar thing, kek.
"the Henry George argument is the least bad means of raising needed public revenue"
its retarded to assume that the pies are the same size in each of these systems
It's not about taxation. I don't believe an income tax is justifiable, either. But the claim which George makes about land being the common right of all mankind is facially ludicrous, and approaches "lol why do we even have borders" territory.
Kek. ITT: a bunch of angsty, envious manchildren who are upset their families never scrabbled together enough cash to buy some land, or sold it off for trinkets.
t. first son of a fifth generation farmer w/ 20,000 acres coming my way
This would work, I was thinking of a pure acreage tax. Property value tax would also help mitigate urban overdensity possibly.
Side note, In Houston, our property tax assessments have been increasing dramatically year after year, even as the market here remains depressed because of cheap oil. It's gotten to the point where there are attorneys whose entire practice is fighting property tax increases like speeding tickets, and hiring them has pretty much become a tax (necessity) annually.
>Implying anyone here is against private land ownership
Lurk more before posting you retarded leaf.
It's just a little analogy dude of course it isn't, it's simply an illustration to show the differences between the systems, the real world is more complex to that.
Land will become more prohibitively expensive, homebuilding will stop, mortgages will fail, and the market will destroy trillions in pensions, 401ks, and retirement. Whether or not your economic model will be successful in the long run is irrelevant if you can't mitigate the disastrous effects that will happen short term.
Jews can only be successful in capitalism if they earn it
I guess jews must be the master race if they can succeed the most in a competetive envoirnment