Hacker News Reader

The Georgist land tax taxed the unimproved value of the land. The tax remains the same whatever you build on it.

Sale price already nudges you to preserve, improve, or augment the value of the land.

So I think your concern either already would have happened, or if not, a Georgist land value tax makes it no more likely. Thanks for the opportunity to think this through this far; what am I missing?

View on HN

The article seems to be a little loose with its terminology. It uses the term “land value tax”, but describes it the same as what you term a “Georgist land tax”. But then the article seems to imply that all efforts nationwide to implement a “land value tax” are good, which I doubt, since what people usually mean by “land value tax” is much closer to what I described, not what you wrote.

I don't see the difference between "land value tax" and "Georgist land tax". Surely they both exclude the value of improvements, and the tax that includes them is called "property tax"?

After some investigating, it seems that I was the one with the loose vocabulary. It seems that you are right and I was wrong in the use of the term “land-value tax”. What I argued against, and called “land-value tax”, should more properly be termed “real estate property tax”. I am sorry for the confusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com