Talk:Georgism

(Criticism of the) Reception section
''"After studying Progress and Poverty, Tyler Cowen concluded, "George had some good economic arguments, but [. . .] was politically naive. At the margin we should move in George’s direction, but ultimately landowners have to be part of the building coalitions rather than pure victims."''

This criticism is a straw-man argument, since taxing unimproved land in of itself, encourages land owners to build and make use of the land and thus is indeed involving them in the "building coalition".

Economist and Geolibertarian, Fred Foldvary, argues that a Georgist land value tax can be seen as forming part of a universal ethic. "When the land rent is distributed equally among the people, and when there is no legal restriction or imposed cost on peaceful and honest enterprise, nor on the consumption of goods, then a basic income from rent, plus the easy ability to become self-employed, prevents firm owners from exploiting workers, and prevents landlords from becoming housing tyrants."[120] Foldvary was one of the few economists who predicted the 2008 GFC. In 1998 he predicted there would be a real estate-related recession in 2008 [121] and a tech bubble collapse in the year 1999 or 2000. In 2007 Foldvary published a booklet entitled The Depression of 2008.[122]

[121] Foldvary, Fred E. (1998) ""Will There Be a Recession?"". Archived from the original on November 23, 2001. Retrieved 2017-10-07., www.ProgressReport.org [122] "Fred Foldvary". Foldvary.net. Retrieved 2013-03-26.

Mason Gaffney, a notable Georgist economist, argued in 1994, that neoclassical economics (where land and capital are combined) was a strategy in order to prevent Georgism [123]. In 2011, Gaffney criticized the economic community for excluding and ignoring Foldvary's work.[124]

[123] Gaffney, Mason (1994), "Neoclassical economics as a stratagem against Henry George" [124] Gaffney, Mason (2011), "An Award for Calling the Crash". Econ Journal Watch, Volume 8, Number 2, 185-192

--Skywalker8 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(Criticism of the) Criticism section
The Criticism section doesn't seem natural. With almost every criticism refuted by what 'Georgists' believe. However, we are yet to determine what defines a Georgist - indeed it may be impossible due to different traditions of Georgists having incompatible beliefs.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Double checking Notable Georgist references
Some of the references used to define people as notable Georgists are incorrect. Therefore, we need to check through the list and build consensus. If you check a 'Georgist' not listed below add their name and the references used. When a 'Georgist' is already listed then vote below. Thanks in advance, all constructive comments welcome.
 * Previous attempts at removing poorly-sourced list members were reverted. This is not a problem with sources, per se; it's a behavioural problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment there may be a problem with the following scenario. Someone checks a source, the cite is correct so they leave it.  Someone checks the cite is incorrect and they remove it.  A bit later someone reverts the removal because they believe the cite is actually correct (maybe thinking 'it does mention land tax').  What you have is duplication of effort and miscommunication.  Several people may check the same reference.  The reason for removal and reversion aren't record.  If the reasons for keeping or removing is documented here it avoids that problem.  Even if someone is trying to add as many people as possible, documenting here will make it hard for them to pursue that agenda.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Solution: If a name is removed, it is up to the person who wishes to re-add it to post here first with the sources which specifically connect the person substantially to Georgism.  Easy. Collect (talk)
 * That solves half the problem. But how do we know which entries have been checked (ie. the cite is correct and the Name remains)?Jonpatterns (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Start at the beginning of each sublist - then use a "commented out comment" that the sublist has been checked - ok enough? Collect (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That method would work too. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I object to a standard that there is need for variations of "George", "geo/geoist", "single tax", or "earth sharer". That is irrelevant. I fully intend to return Thomas Paine to this list when I get the chance to find a good quote. The most famous geoists lived long before Henry George was even born. Some of the most dedicated lifelong georgists intentionally decline to use "isms", much less a proper noun ism like "Georgism". I agree that not all supporters of LVT are georgists, which is why I moved Milton Friedman and Hayek to the criticisms section. Proto-anarcho-capitalists are in the moral minority though. If someone supports LVT *and* makes a positive moral/fairness case for it, that either the land or the rents of land in some way actually belong to the community, then he/she is certainly a [g]eorgist/geoist. Both Bill Moyers and Albert Einstein sang praises of Henry George and Progress and Poverty, but I removed them from the list, even when nobody was challenging, because neither explicitly mentioned economic rent or land. The name "georgism" can be confusing if you are not familiar with it. Whomyl (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I think the main article needs improving.  Especially the concept relates in history to before Henry George but has later become known as Georgism and Geoism.  Also the difference between a Land Value Tax advocate and a Georgist.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right.
 * Wikipedia has a funny requirement that claims be sourced to "reliable sources." Your objection would allow someone like King Tut to be on the list -- and such an extension of the topic would reach absurdity very quickly.  (Ancient Egypt essentially taxed land). Collect (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that I have not made any arguments or assertions like that (the opposite, if you read what I just wrote above). It's true that this page needed work and that you have been helpful at improving it, but don't make absurd and condescending comments.  Most philosophers have recognized that land/nature was the rightful property of the crown or commons, so we would need to be careful about not just including anyone who said land was rightfully public. When I get around to finding evidence for Paine or others, people can challenge it. I thought that was how wikipedia worked.Whomyl (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There were cases of editors removing dozens of people without even reading the sources. As long as we do it this way and it does not go too far, then we should trim the list. I want it to be accurate as much as you do. That's why I recently removed Chrystia Freeland, even though her entire article was about how great Henry George was. Our friction comes from the fact that I am using the definition of georgism and you seem to be searching for that particular word.Whomyl (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mason Gaffney
Ref 1 - Mason Gaffney's homepage

Ref 2 - Henry_George_100_Years_Later.pdf

✅ Keep - Both reference state Henry George as important and Ref 2 mentions Georgism Jonpatterns (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ Keep I agree, but I completely object to that standard. Whomyl (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fred Harrison
Ref 1 - Fred Harrison's website

Ref 2 - Fred Harrison speaks at ALTER Spring Conference 2014

Ref 3 - Announcements: Fred Harrison’s New Website and Homage to Henry George georgist.com

Ref 4 - Harrison’s Traumatised Society earthsharing.org.au - introduced as a leading Georgist.

✅ Keep I refuse to debate this again. Harrison is a famous Georgist, regardless of what he may or may not commonly call himself. He is the president of an international georgist organization. Also, see his entire life's work and personal wikipedia page...Whomyl (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - there are cases when Youtube is an acceptable source.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ Keep I've added the reference from his wikipedia article and found another one. What international Georgist organisation was he president of? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Potential Geogists and suitability of references can be discussed here rather than edit waring.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quite non-utile ping. WP:BLP requires deletion of claims not strongly sourced, and it is the job of those adding material to strongly source claims.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit (I see WP:BLP applies to any page), however I still feel in this case the following is relevent WP:PROVEIT "Whether and how quickly [removal of unsourced material] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."Jonpatterns (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Harrison has other smaller organizations actually; I was thinking of "The IU", but he only makes videos for them. Whomyl (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In this document, he calls himself a georgist here: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_georgism-a-reality-check-2006.html Even georgists who have spent their entire lives dedicated to promoting this idea shy away from using the term Georgist, so you have to catch them in transcripts and internal papers.  Sometimes it is necessary to judge based on their stated beliefs, but not this time. Whomyl (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Hudson
Ref - China...Land Tax is needed...

❌ Weak remove - mentions Henry George and his followers wanted a land tax. There is nothing that would suggest Michael Hudson is anything more than a 'Land Value Tax' advocate. There a category on his page 'Georgism' - this lists pages mentioning Henry George. Searching the site of Georgism returns no results. Six articles mention Georgist - maybe one of them could sway my vote. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He explicitly states that he is a georgist in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elg6i3NxvdE Whomyl (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ keep - Hudson is unusual. He is a *geoist* who truly hates other Georgists, mostly because some of the older folks are polar opposite from him politically, and the Georgist foundations supposedly wronged him way back in the 80s or 90s. I have no opinion about that, but he is definitely a geoist (geonomist, anti-rentier classical economist, Earth sharer, Georgist---whatever you want to call it). You don't need to take my word for it though; he openly says that he hates Georgists but that he is one himself. As you can see in this video, Henry George himself could hardly have been more Georgist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elg6i3NxvdE And there are dozens of examples like this (most recent): "This is what Henry George wrote about in The Irish Land Question back in 1881. Great book, just read Henry George and The Land Question and you’ll get everything you need to know about why Ireland should have had the tax base on the land" http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/17/an-interview-with-michael-hudson-on-economic-violence/ And here he is lecturing the 2003 Council of Georgist Organizations conference: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hudson-michael_has-georgism-been-hijacked-by-special-interests-2003.html Whomyl (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ Remove The editor might be asserting what he "knows" and not relying on what RS sources state in black-and-white. "Could hardly have been more Georgist" is not a "reliable source", it is a personal claim, and unless the editor finds something that meets WP:RS (YouTube and blogs do not meet that criterion), the name should be removed, along with a slew of other names added in the past without strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They are first person sources. One of them is in his own voice... Plus a dozen articles and other interviews. And his circumstantial history (working for georgist foundation). He certainly fits the definition of "georgist", so perhaps you have a problem with the definition?Whomyl (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone said exactly these words, would that make him/her a georgist in your option? "People own what they create, but income (economic rent) from things found in nature, most importantly from land, belongs equally to all."  If someone says that and also proposes some sort of market mechanism for achieving that end (usually LVT), then the answer is clearly yes; he/she is a geoist.Whomyl (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ Simply not supported by sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirming source: "It is true that overall functions could un-tax labor and capital and make up the difference with a land tax. This is what George said, and it is what I believe and support." Hudson, 2003. http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hudson-michael_has-georgism-been-hijacked-by-special-interests-2003.html Whomyl (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

George Monbiot
Ref - i-agree-with-churchill-shirkers-tax

❌ Remove - Only mentions taxing the land, no mention of Henry George or Georgism Jonpatterns (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ Keep - This is in fact my favorite georgist article. Monbiot makes a compelling case for LVT using explicitly moral arguments that land rents belong to society. He even goes as far as saying that "land value taxation" is a "misnomer", that it is not really a tax. (LVT is a user fee, not a tax.) My point is that he voices a profoundly georgist opinion on that subject, something that would otherwise seem morally and economically esoteric.Whomyl (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ Remove Again -- we need a reliable source which meets WP:RS and unless we have one, we can not use him here. Collect (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

question What standard do you want to use? Monbiot clearly states that LVT is a user-fee, not a tax, and that failure to collect land rents for the community is an unjust taking from the community. That is just restating the definition of georgism. I accept that it may not be obvious to others based on this article, so if the the evidence is not strong enough, Monbiot should be removed.70.36.139.162 (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * *but not* based on a standard that sources must use "geo-". That would be unacceptable, since it would exclude full-time geoists and people who have written books and made movies promoting georgism. One of the major geoist organizations is called "International Union for Land Value Taxation" ("The IU"). Georgists sometimes opt for other synonymous terms. So people may use, "humaniteer", or "Earth sharing", or "geonomist", "physiocrat", "classical economist", etc., or simple "LVT advocate". Make an attempt to step back and work a little with the definition of geoism, without becoming too fixated on that specific word.70.36.139.162 (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was about to remove Monbiot, but had second thoughts when re-reading article. It is impossible to write this paragraph and not be a georgist: "The term is a misnomer. It's not really a tax. It's a return to the public of the benefits we have donated to the landlords. When land rises in value, the government and the people deliver a great unearned gift to those who happen to own it." 70.36.139.162 (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry -- that you "know" that someone writing something "must be a Georgist" does not fall into the category of "reliable sources" and absolutely does not meet the letter nor spirit of the WP:BLP policy. Collect (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably a decent edit given the currently limited circumstantial evidence. Thanks.Whomyl (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright
Ref - wealthandwant

✅ Weak keep - has read and is impressed with Henry George's work. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ Weak keep - From a quick search of his biography, it looks like he might have also been in a "Single Tax" discussion group. Whomyl (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich
Ref (using wayback machine) - Who was Henry George? this ref can be found using archive.org

❌ Remove - the article just states - Congressman Dennis Kucinich has also positively mentioned Henry George in speeches. not really enough to say he was a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ Remove Agreed. Kucinich may or may not be a Georgist, but I have not seen any evidence. This one was left over from when the section heading was titled "people influenced by Georgism". Whomyl (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

David Nolan
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/nolan.htm

❌ Remove There is no good evidence Nolan was a georgist. This source simply says LVT "is the least bad". I know more than several self-proclaimed georgists who say the same, so he might have been a georgist, but that alone is not evidence of georgism, since it might be only a recognition that LVT is efficient.Whomyl (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

❌ Remove Dave Nolan was absolutely remotely not a "Georgist" - he did follow Rand etc., but ended up as a "pragmatic libertarian" as far as I can tell. Georgist - not. Collect (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas
❌ Lucas has stated clearly that she wants to replace Council and Business rates with LVT, but not necessarily any other taxes. To be certain that Lucas is a geoist, she would need to show that she recommends replacing most/all bad taxes *or* make a moral argument that land rent inherently belongs to the public. So for that reason I agree with 's decision to remove her from the list.Whomyl (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarence Darrow
Darrow was *definitely* a georgist at one point in his life, but I'm not sure if he remained so until his death. Perhaps the source provided is not adequate---I have not examined it yet: http://savingcommunities.org/docs/darrow.clarence/abolish.html---but I don't have the time to dig up something better right now. So for the moment I won't challenge his removal.Whomyl (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Previously removed for inadequate citation

 * John Kenneth Galbraith
 * Michael Hudson
 * Michael Lind
 * Anthony Spossey (sources only show that he supports land value taxation)

Idea behind the removed 'Previously restored for adequate citation' section
Names are/ where being added and removed without discussion. If a name is on both restored and removed then it flags them up as controversial. Unfortunately the process seems hindered by the fact that there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Hudson (economist)
Is Michael Hudson reliably sourced to be a "Georgist"? 00:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey
No - I was invited here, randomly, by a bot. If a reliable secondary source says Hudson was a Georgist, then we can also say that. Otherwise I would consider it OR. Wikipedia editors evaluate content based on verifiability, not what we individually consider truth. Our interpretation of primary sources is not relevant here. I'm not aware of a source that says Hudson was a Georgist and until one is produced, I !vote no. Joja lozzo  15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find that acceptable, unless you can explain why a secondary source is needed when we have the words directly from Hudson.Whomyl (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my response below. It's best to keep discussion out of the survey section of an RFC. Joja  lozzo  01:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Given the dispute, and the likelihood that Michael Hudson has gone in and been taken out of the list of 'economic georgists' several times, it might be wisest to put him in with following parenthesis "(disputed)" C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources about that person do not use the term "Georgist" or "Georgism." Some refer to "land tax" but IMO that is insufficient to make the claim of him specifically being a Georgist. The first cite given is a long treatise where George is mentioned, but where the author does not assert that he is specifically a Georgist. The second cite is a YouTube video, which is not WP:RS complaint, and the remaining cite is exemplified by its statement: (1) that the movement to tax economic rent has been trivialized, and (2) that this is the result of its having been hijacked by a group of people whose ideology is basically averse to the ideas of Henry George.. which basically says the Georgist movement is not run buy followers of George any more. In fact, the speech also alludes to Marx - but one would not label Hudson a Marxist. And it is remarkably obvious why Hudson referred to George in the speech - it was a speech to a Council of Georgist Organizations. And the speech is not on a WP:RS website, alas, in the first place. Collect (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did we ever settle what constitutes a Georgist? What is the difference between a Georgist and a land value tax advocate? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the discussion ended up with pretty much "unless a reliable source states 'Georgist' or 'Georgism', the source does not support calling any person a 'Georgist'".  Else we likely could add Socrates and the like to the list. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, and so cannot definitively state what makes someone a Georgist. However, my opinion is in accord with Collect's most recent comment: a source must explicitly label someone a Georgist, not just an advocate of a land value tax.  Until it is proven that Georgism only consists of this land value tax, I don't think we can make this assumption.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there still aren't sources calling him a georgist, why does Whomyl insert content calling him a georgist, over and over again? bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See above Talk:Georgism, at the end of the section states that Hudson said he believed some of the same things as George.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not just "some of the same things as George". There is only one thing that matters...  Agreeing with George on things is not required for being a georgist; if it were, then most georgists would no longer be geoists, including myself.  Some georgists don't even like george.  If you are looking for more, then you are reading too much into the name of the article, "georgism", which used to have "geosim" as a title synonym to make clearer that geoism existed as a philosophy before George was born. Whomyl (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already told you that the word "georgist/geoist" is not necessary, but in this particular case, the point is mute, since he mentions his admiration for George 3 times even directly says he is a georgist in the plainest speak possible. You should not even need to interpret it:
 * ""It is true that overall functions could un-tax labor and capital and make up the difference with a land tax. This is what George said, and it is what I believe and support."" Whomyl (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If that sentence alone does not satisfy you that he is a geoist, then you are not only not understanding the definition of "geoism", you are also denying Hudson's own words when he states that he is in economic/philosophical/political agreement with georgists on the land question---the only question that matters here. He may dislike some georgists *personally*, and he may have reason to, but that isn't relevant.  He is a "georgist/geoist", he states it clearly in multiple sources, each one clearer than the next.  I really don't understand what the confusion is about here...Whomyl (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. In case where the word "georgist/geoist" isn't used, and possibly no mention of Henry George, how would we know someone is a Georgist?  What do you think to the example of Socrates as mentioned above. Do you think he was a Georgist? Jonpatterns (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never heard Socrates referenced in relation to georgism or land issues, so I cannot answer that example. More broadly, I would include people like Locke and Thomas Paine, who saw land as inherently public but recognized that it needed to be owned, managed, and traded privately to maintain productive use, yet exclude the many philosophers who recognized that land was special and that private rent extraction was immoral.  That is because they didn't have practical free-market solutions, only moral objections.  Classical socialists---Fabians for example (who were greatly influenced by the georgist movement)---wanted to socialize rent as the top priority, but they are excluded as non-georgists because they generally wanted government to take over the management and control of land use. Whomyl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to spend less time battling overly aggressive edits and more time clarifying this article. That is my fault. Whomyl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to spend less time automatically reverting everybody else, and more time finding sources that actually support what you want to say. This article could have complied with WP:V months ago. If your edits need adult supervision - because each edit is quite likely to insert content which isn't actually supported by the "sources" - this creates work for other editors, so your presence is a net negative. Eventually this article will be brought in line with policy; so far, progress has been extremely slow and difficult, but if you ease off on the reverting and the misuse of sources, we could get there a lot quicker. bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Whomyl's definition of what constitutes a Georgist is wider than just someone who has been described/self-described as a Goergist. Therefore sources that would be rejected on the narrower definition would be applicable to the wider definition.  That is why I think central is issue is agree what constitutes a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would seem to require a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) specifically describing a person as a "Georgist." Else we would have the amorphous position of using almost everyone who used a "land tax" from Socrates onward in the list :).   Collect (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'd like a source for your comments about Socrates... Whomyl (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Second, that's a straw man. I'm not objecting to the removal of people who advocate increasing LVT---that would be every person in the world who understands economics.  *A geoist/georgist* is someone who accepts the notion of private property but takes the idea rent capture further, believing, usually with a moral dimension, that rents should be the basis of public revenue.  That's my definition and I'm sticking to it. Whomyl (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Whomyl: The need for secondary sources is explained at WP:V. I think you are conducting your own research, interpreting Hudson's words, rather than finding a source that says what you believe to be true. Wikipedia policy is very clear that we need sources not our own beliefs to verify content: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I understand this can be frustrating but if there are no sources then we must live with Wikipedia lacking content that we believe is true.

If you think my application of policy is incorrect or inappropriate, then please site policy to support your position. Our personal assertions of what must be contained in an article carry no weight. Joja lozzo  01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate reliance on primary sources to identify Georgists
Use of primary sources to identify a Georgist is inappropriate for this project. We need secondary sources to make such identifications. Interpreting primary sources, while apparently long tolerated here, is nonetheless OR and a violation of basic policy. This implicates a great majority of those now included in the lists and most of those "checked" above. Joja lozzo  18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If someones states on camera they are a Georgist surely that is good a reference. Where is the policy does it say this is not so?
 * WP:OR states-


 * If someone states they are a Georgist - this doesn't not require any interpretation or evaluation, just to note they didn't mean it ironically or jokingly etc.
 * Also note argues there are other criteria for someone to be described as a Georgist other than the use of being described or self described as a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An admission of Georgism might be temporary, partial, conditional, convoluted, or even incorrect. As I posted just above, the operative policy is from the OR policy page (WP:PRIMARY): "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.." Your OR policy quote ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ...") also covers this case, clearly stating that primary sources alone are insufficient. Basing most of this article's attributions of Georgism on primary sources alone is not using primary sources to a lesser extent. Joja  lozzo  03:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What if the primary source does not need interpretation? Secondary sources may also be  temporary, partial, conditional, convoluted, or even incorrect too. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please list the primary sources that do not require interpretation. It's possible that I will agree they do not require interpretation and can be used as "lesser extent" support without violating OR policy.
 * In my opinion, primary sources that require any editorial inference to determine the author's designation as a Georgist cannot be used here. The purpose of the OR policy is to ensure such determinations can be verified by secondary observers.
 * Even a person who claims to be a Georgist might be contradicted in that view by secondary sources. Do we use the authors' words or their actions to make these designations? The answer is that we don't make such determinations, we need secondary sources to do that.
 * Your argument about problems with secondary sources seems specious. If you disagree then please list secondary sources that require interpretation and I may agree we can drop the content supported by them. Joja  lozzo  17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinions on this subject. I can see the merit in strict rules limiting or excluding original research and interpretation of source. This is helping me understand the policy better. I want to comply with standards. However, I remain confused by many of the earlier mass removals for people who for example, founded Single Tax communities on the principles of Henry George; someone even recently asserted that first person statements are not acceptable if the recordings are hosted on youtube.  In other cases, editors don't read sources and simply search for "georg" in the documents, apparently unaware of synonyms.Whomyl (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please indulge me; would the following statements require any interpretation to determine if the author were georgist? Especially the second quote requires nothing more than reading comprehension, absolutely no interpretation. We might even use it to replace the definition of georgism given in the headline of georgism.  My reason for resisting the requirement of the name "George" is that it would leave out georgists like this, who spell out their belief in this idea in clear language. Whomyl (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) "The mere abolition of rent would not remove injustice, since it would confer a capricious advantage upon the occupiers of the best sites and the most fertile land. It is necessary that there should be rent, but it should be paid to the state or to some body which performs public services; or, if the total rental were more than is required for such purposes, it might be paid into a common fund and divided equally among the population." --Bertrand Russell Whomyl (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) "I would abolish land monopoly by simply taxing all land, exclusive of improvements, up to its full value... In other words, I would recognize private property in the results of labour, and not in land." --Michael Davitt Whomyl (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You say the language in these examples is clearly Georgist but that is your opinion. Since neither of these quotations says anything about George, then any claim that the authors are Georgists requires, by definition, a) application of your personal understanding of Georgism and b) your personal interpretation of their words as promulgating your understanding of Georgism. Such compounded synthesis and interpretation is inappropriate in a serious way. We need secondary sources, not only to bring a reliable and verifiable interpretation of author's meanings but also a reliable and verifiable understanding of Georgism. As editors, our personal interpretations and understandings are extremely valuable in comprehending and using the sources that underlie our work but we must use absolute restraint when it comers to adding content that is supported only by our own independent understanding and interpretation. Joja lozzo  22:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

major expansion "bold edit"
, appears to greatly expand what Georgism should cover as an article. Archived discussions do not appear to support this as having consensus. Collect (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Should Georgism be defined as including support for land taxes, land rents,  capital land gains, pollution fees, location taxes,   and fees for "use and abuse of the land-commons"    in general? 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - the problem with the article in the past that it didn't define what Georgism is. It just rambled on about some opinions and activities of Henry George.  It may be impossible to define Georgism due to differnet groups with different philosophies adopting the term.  If this is the case the article should state this, and what the different Georgists believe.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Neutral notifications have been sent to those who have written on this talk page in the past, excluding IPs (who do not get notifications from the software), and absent editors. Collect (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The question should not be whether the Wikipedia article should define Georgism to include something or not include something, the question should be whether proposed text is supported with citations and references. If the collection of taxes to fund pollution clean-up caused by corporations which extract public resources is or is not included in Georgism, there should be suitable references and citations supporting or debunking the factuality of the proposed text.
 * So the editors asking about this should be asking themselves where on the Internet are there suitable citations and references? If they can find none, the claim should not be made in the extant article. If solid, legitimate, reliable references and citations exist which support the issue, then yes, the extant article should note that.
 * My assumption is that there are no supporting Internet documents which are suitable which means the statement should not be included in the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Follow the sources - I think we've covered this ground very thoroughly already. As editors we cannot determine what is and what isn't Georgist. There must be sources that make the distinction for us. If content is added without good (generally, secondary) sources designating a person, policy, philosophy as Georgist, then it doesn't belong here. What part of policy on original research is unclear? Joja  lozzo  21:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Follow the Georgist sources Wikipedia practice is that the description that people and groups give about themselves are usually considered definitive; e.g. if a person declares himself 'bi-sexual', that should be how he is described in the lead, no matter if some may call him 'gay'. Applying this principle, we should look at how Georgists describe themselves. The single unifying principle found in all Georgist organizations is that they declare the paramount importance of a tax on land on moral and economic grounds. Many explicitly define 'land' in the economic sense, to include all natural resources. So, a simple description may be "Georgists hold that a land tax is morally and economically desirable; some Georgists extend this concept to a tax on all natural resources". LK (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Use third party reliable sources  This is normal Wikipedia practice, as some of the "Georgist sources" seem to include many things not remotely connected to Henry George at all.  We do not use Scientology sources to "define Scientology" for example. Collect (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

discussion 1
Pollution and resource extraction fees are unanimously considered georgist in nature. They may not be wholly georgist on their own, but the idea of using them as the basis for taxation is. Charging people for extracting resources (depleting) land and dumping pollution on into nature/land/commons is identical to capturing rent with LVT. You might see disagreement about what constitutes pollution (e.g., carbon), but no disagreement that charging people for damaging or depleting the commons is part of georgism. Whomyl (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that what you assert is "unanimously considered", ain't. And the prior discussions on this talk page have in every case came down against this sort of "expansion of the topic" in case you had not noticed.  I would note you are now edit warring to add the disputed material while the RfC is in process, which I suggest is improper.  Wait until this RfC, like the prior ignored discussions, is ended.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like a simple RS question. Are there sources? Howunusual (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources given do not meet WP:RS as being reliable secondary sources at all. As far as I can tell, of course.  Meanwhile, re-adding disputed material during an ongoing RfC is against Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Which sources? Which issues are contentious?  Pollution taxes being georgist?  If that's it, there are plenty of sources.Whomyl (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "road crowding, water withdrawals from surface and underground sources, minerals extraction, air and water pollution, spectrum use, fish catches, billboards, etc., are major additions to land revenues." --Professor Mason Gaffney, Georgist.  http://www.henrygeorge.org/taxable_capacity.htm Whomyl (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS.  Self published sources are of remarkably limited value on Wikipedia.    Find actual works by economists in peer-reviewed journals if you wish to add this material.   "henrygeorge.com" is not such a source.  Collect (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a reprint from a peer reviewed paper or one submitted for a seminar. If you had looked at the article, you would see "NOTE: This article appeared in Georgist Journal Nos. 101-103. For a fully documented and annotated version, see Here."Whomyl (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Taxing air and water polluters by levying "effluent charges" won the favor of many economists influential in the 1960s. The reasoning, from Cambridge economist Arthur Cecil Pigou, was pure Georgism: make polluters pay an economical price for fouling publicly owned air and water." http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers08/08-12old.pdf Whomyl (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, the source says Pigou's reasoning is Georgist, not the policies. I expect this source is unwilling to identify the policies as Georgist because it requires inferring the policymakers' motives. Joja  lozzo  23:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether one must have georgist reasoning or motives in order to support pollution fees. The question is whether georgists consistently and rationally consider pollution fees to be a central component of georgist thinking and policy. Out of a hundred georgists I have talked to, only one doubted that was the case, and for good reason, as Gaffney explains.  It's not a big deal.  If you are set on just trolling or limiting edits for ideological reasons, then I have better things to do.  If you are serious about wikipedia and want to find good sources, then I can help.Whomyl (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Your persistence on editing without sources and your reliance on original research in your arguments here leads me to doubt your understanding of policy. You need to make your case based on policy not on your personal experience with the domain. No matter how many people you have talked to, you cannot use that as the basis for editing this article. If you can help with sources, then do that but please stop adding content that is based on your understanding of the topic without suitable sources. Joja lozzo  01:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Have there been a lot of Georgist policy-makers? Howunusual (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite a few before 1940. How is that relevant though? "The Forgotten Idea That Shaped Great U.S. Cities" http://onthecommons.org/magazine/forgotten-idea-shaped-great-us-cities Whomyl (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The assertion that "Pollution and resource extraction fees are unanimously considered georgist in nature" is outright false. There's a whole realm of Pigovian work out there which is worth a read... and which pays little attention to George. But apparently we can cite a Georgist who says that Pigou is Georgist... ;-) bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pigou actually sort of was, but that's not the point. Again... the question is *not* whether pollution tax *equals* georgism and nothing else; the question is whether pollution tax *must be included* as part of a comprehensive view of georgism.  I'll give your intelligence the benefit of doubt and assume you are just trolling again, because you must see that.  Gaffney didn't even say Pigou was a georgist; you are just making that up, so you are way off bounds on this conversation.  You are also contradicting yourself; you are always saying that georgism is not the same as land value tax, that it is broader; I agree, but now you are taking the opposite position and saying pollution taxes cannot be part of georgism because pollution taxes are not land taxes.  Nonsense.  Don't you anarcho-capitalists have anything better to do?70.36.139.181 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

discussion 2
Prior discussion on this talk page (see archive Talk:Georgism/Archive_1 seems to demur on this position - that is, the article should restrict itself to the defined topic, and not extend the topic to all "land tax" supporters, etc. I take no position on this here, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC).
 * I strongly agree with Collect. --Fox1942 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Though most noted for his advocacy of the single tax on land, there was much more to Henry George than this. A more scholarly article on Georgism, IMO, would begin with George's underlying ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical commitments, which can be found in his books and other writings. Put another way, what's the deeper foundation of this particular "-ism"? This, in turn, should be followed by his general economic, political, and social views grounded in those particular commitments. EPM (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That might help. There is already a wikipedia page for Henry George, which could probably be improved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Economic_and_political_philosophy However, a problem is that "Georgism" is sort of a misnomer, since Thomas Paine clearly advocated georgism in Agrarian Justice, which is in fact the source of geo-libertarian's "citizen's dividend".  Many modern georgists no longer talk about Henry George, and a few don't even like him. (Michael Hudson)70.36.139.181 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion 3
I think the recent addition of a source to support pollution tax as Georgist holds out promise for what we've been asking for. However I think there are some problems with it. It is a set of slides from a conference presentation, which 1) is by nature quite terse and requires unreliable inference of the speaker's intent and 2) is a self-published source which does not meet RS requirements. If the presenter wrote up the ideas in that talk and got them published in a peer-reviewed journal or book, then I think we'd have at least one source to support some of the "other tax" content. Joja lozzo  21:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was the other source from an ecology textbook that you may have missed. I think you are right about the slide presentation, but I'm working with what I happen to bump into. There are many many sources out there as evidence for this, so I just need a bit of time.  I'll google it now to see what else comes up.  This is a detailed presentation by the economist Ottmar Edenhofer making the same case that pollution taxes or auctioned pollution privileges (those two systems are economically equivalent) are a georgist.  Edenhofer is famous for his work on pollution, not georgism, so he is a credible source. https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/talks/20130626_Edenhofer_Input_Final2.pdf 70.36.139.181 (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

An issue of taxing extraction as a means of supporting protecting resources is that it is, either, too late or too early. That is, it is taxing something that is gone or it is preventing use that could be a benefit~ the reason for using resources. One fails & the other will cause other ramifications which one cannot know what effect they will have. The second being repressive & which may not achieve its goal in the long run. The first only a promise of redemption of loss. It fails to protect historical existence, present use, & future preservation.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

before re-adding masses of material
Please get a WP:CONSENSUS first. Propose small bits and if you do not get consensus, drop the stick. A single editor continually re-adding material contrary to any consensus is likely to cause major problems. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Iterating -- any re-addition of the masses of material sans actual consensus will specifically be reported at WP:ANEW.

Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In order for there to be a lack of consensus, there must first be an objection. Neither you nor anyone else has raised any. You simply remove edits and claim a lack of consensus.Whomyl (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Iterating -- ***If you have reason to question or disagree with anything*** you have the right to seek consensus, but you cannot just inexplicably demand a vote in response to every edit. You can challenge edits in good faith, but you must provide some explanation.Whomyl (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Several editors have made clear that the addition of material is improper here - and I specifically aver that I oppose any additions where no consensus has been found beforehand. Clear? Collect (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "addition of material is improper here"?? Not only do I not know what that means, I have no idea what editors you are talking about.Whomyl (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bobrayner made a good edit that I supported. He removed a couple paragraphs that described ecological economics in general without any obvious connection to Georgism and without any sources.  I didn't write that section and had not noticed that it was out of place, but he did the right thing removing it.  That's why I rewrote it with sources in a way that hopefully makes sense. It's currently not in the article; I added it below for review and encourage your feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgism#Pollution_taxes.2Fquotas_and_ecology  Thanks. Whomyl (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources and material "(rm blogs and twitter as sources)"
@Collect, Please explain why you removed those sources.Whomyl (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What does "rm blogs" mean? Some of the sources look like academic web addresses and published papers.Whomyl (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked up Wikipedia policy on first person "self-published" sources, and it appears that you misunderstand the policy or did not read the Twitter source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Whomyl (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are not WP:RS and the use of "Twitter" is problematic per discussions in the past at WP:RS/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'll look at the sources you removed more closely; some of them seemed to be academic. In any case, official Wikipedia policy accepts the use of self-published tweets, especially from verified accounts.  If there were better sources using the word "Georgism", then I would be persuaded to use those instead.  However, since Yglesias is in fact a Georgist and explicitly confirms that fact on Twitter, I don't see a better option than to use what we have.  Thoughts?  Suggestions?Whomyl (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Twitter does not make any assurance that accounts represent specific real people except in very limited cases. Blogs are really a major problem, especially where they refer to other people, etc.  As the discussions above have repeatedly iterated -- you need to find "Georgist" or "Georgism" in the source, not simply vague references to "land taxes" or "pollution taxes" or the like.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is Yglesias's personal twitter account, verified by Twitter, and active for years. He was listed as a georgist here even fore that Twitter source was added.  The source is first-person, self-published, and specifically says "Georgism is completely correct."Whomyl (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC - are Pigovian positions etc. properly included here?
Are the list of taxes associated with Pigovian tax and other taxes properly included under Georgism? What taxes should be directly linked to "Georgism" in this article and using what criteria? 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
An extensive list of taxes has been added, many with no apparent direct connection to "Georgism" by third party sources. I asked that consensus be determined first for such additions, but this has been re-added and re-added several times sans any discussion, and sans any act towards determining consensus, and last time the removal was labelled "vandalism" by an editor, therefore I ask this RfC to determine precisely what the requirements should be for labelling any tax as "Georgism" in this article. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no extensive list of taxes added. So that probably means the section heading could be improved: "Sources of economic rent and related policy interventions" Would that be better?Whomyl (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you do not find objective reliable third party sources on a topic, it is clear that the material is not deemed important to secondary source writers. The inclusion of a "xxx tax" as being supported by Georgists can not be used to say "George Gnarph supports the 'xxx tax' and is therefore a Georgist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I basically agree, but I question how you will define "non-georgist". The most likely place to find reliable explanations about what Georgists believe is from Georgists themselves.  "Taxing" the "ownership" of geosynchronous satellite orbits may just be common sense that anyone with any capacity for reasoning can understand, so that does not make advocates of taxing satellite orbits automatically "georgist", but the fact remains: 100% of geoists see satellite-location-rent capture as exactly the same as ground-location-rent capture.  You might not be able to find "non-georgist" sources saying that "taxing" exclusive satellite orbits is "georgist", but I'm sure you could find non-georgist sources saying that orbital locations generate economic rent for the "owners".  That would qualify as a secondary source that validates georgist reasoning.  Economic rent is really what georgists care about.Whomyl (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Third time I have been asked by the 'bot to come here and comment. Why hasn't this been resolved yet? We already went over this, and over this, and over this, we came to an agreement months ago. Damotclese (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I echo Damotclese's sentiment. Let's stick to the sources, and no WP:Synthesis please. The main tenet of Georgism is a large land value tax. The same argument for an LVT tax can be extended to other natural resources, and have been done so by Georgists; this should be noted, but just because one supports a tax on natural resources does not make one a Georgist. Further, Pigouvian taxes are associated with negative externalities, and are distinct from a tax on land and natural resources. LK (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above statements. Its possible that a Pigouvian tax would be supported by Georgist, but by no means do all Pigouvian taxes promote the tenets of Georgism. As stated above the main tenet is a land value tax; hence, it is not a tax on an activity. In other words, Georgism taxes seek to tax property ownership.Familygardner (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LVT is a Pigouvian Tax. It is compensation paid for the burden caused by exclusive use of a irreproducible factor of production, to those excluded from it. i.e a negative externality. Economic justice is the main tenet of Georgism. LVT is merely the instrument, not the goal. Basic stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.245.23 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Require objective third party sources to state what Georgism is lest this use of taxes be used in any way to say a specific person is a "Georgist" because they support a tax on the list provided by some Georgist blogger or writer. Collect (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want objective third party sources stating what Georgism is, please feel free to add some. It will be a pleasure to see you contributing something of substance to the article. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not my task to do anything other than to follow Wikipedia policies and to seek that others do the same.  Using sources which are not looking at Georgism from the outside may be a substantial problem here -- I suggest that the Georgists here recognize the problem.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Pollution taxes/quotas and ecology
Please provide input if you have any thoughts on this edit:

Whomyl (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pollution degrades the value of society's natural air, water, and location commons, instead of overtly excluding others the way landowners use land titles, but Georgist view the results as essentially equivalent. Therefore, to the extent that society determines material pollution to be harmful, Georgism proposes to limit pollution and then capture the resulting rents for public use.    In this way, Georgism is related to the school of ecological economics, since both propose market based restrictions on pollution and the capture of economic rent.  However, the schools of thought emphasize different aspects, with Georgists focusing more on the economic qualities of the natural commons, seeing land as something with use-value and nature as something with enjoyment value.  Ecological economists tend to view nature itself as being in conflict with human activity, rather than to view public interest in nature as arising from conflict between human interests.  As a result, ecologists are more likely to price pollution fines to prevent inherently unquantifiable damage to the environment, rather Georgists who are more inclined to emphasize pollution limits as a means of mediating between conflicting human interests.  A geoist variation of cap and trade would be to set limits on pollution and then auction temporary pollution permits (see cap and share).  Environmental economists advocate the use of these same tools as part of a conservation strategy but might choose different quota or tax values due to the divergent focuses.   Geolibertarians tend to take a more direct stance against what they see as burdensome regulations and would like to see these quotas and taxes replace most command and control regulation. |||

Additional sources (please add here if you find more) http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3486955?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104320199593 Whomyl (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Henry George's Contribution to Modern Environmental Policy: Part I, Theoretical Postulates


 * And if you do not find objective reliable third party sources on a topic, it is clear that the material is not deemed important to secondary source writers. The inclusion of a "xxx tax" as being supported by Georgists can not be used to say "George Gnarph supports the 'xxx tax' and is therefore a Georgist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that supporters of "xxx tax" cannot be categorized as Georgist. Saying that Pigovian taxes are included in the philosophy of Georgism does not mean that every person who advocates for Pigovian tax is Georgist.  Back when the section heading was "People influenced by Georgism", I said that advocates of land value tax, a policy completely derived from Georgism, should be included.  I'm convinced that even LVT advocates are not necessarily Georgist, but I think it is possible to explain reasoning for LVT in ways that make it explicitly "Georgist".  However, I recognize that I seem to be in the minority on that question at the moment.Whomyl (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Whomyl, I largely agree with what you have written. I would tend to believe that someone who advocates a LVT was probably influenced by Georgism, but unless he/she states so (mentions Henry George, Single tax or Georgism), we shouldn't presume. The sources that you list are reliable, especially those from peer reviewed sources. As to the insistence that only what non-Georgists state about Georgism is reliable, this is ridiculous. Firstly, there is no such requirement in WP:RS, secondly, there is no such requirement for any other group. Imagine if only what non-Christians wrote about Christianity were reliable, or only what non-astronomers wrote about astronomy were treated as reliable. Let's stick to written policy and not impose ad-hoc rules with no basis in Wikipedia policy. LK (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing behavior
Please avoid reckless edits. These issues are obviously up for debate. If you have concerns about sources or if you have discovered conflicting sources, please make them known. However, I'm not going to take you seriously if you remove people by just saying...Whomyl (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Anarchist, not georgist."
 * "Pacifist, not georgist."
 * "Conservative, not georgist."
 * "Democrat, not georgist."
 * "Fabian, not georgist."
 * You may have your own secret reasoning, but I'm not even going to bother to ask you what it is if you do that. I'm simply going to assume it is vandalism, even if it is not.Whomyl (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is the sources often don't support the inclusion of these figures as Georgists (I checked the sources before deleting), but as admirers, sympathizers, or simply folk influenced by Georgism. The extreme lack of care in identifying Georgists has been a problem on this article for a long time.  I think we may do better by removing the entire section.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Let's start with Nock and Tolstoy, since I believe they may have been the most openly Georgist.  Nock founded or edited a geo-libertarian magazine at one point, wrote a book about George, and everyone says he was Georgist, but I'll have another look to be sure.  He *may* have eventually been against land value tax as an anarchist, but many anarchist and mutualist georgists support other schemes or voluntary LVT and self-assessment.  Do you have any particular reason for thinking he is not Georgist or did you just find the sources unconvincing?  As for Tolstoy... I have no idea what to say other than that you need to read the sources again, especially the second one.  Supposedly, Tolstoy was even talking about Henry George on his death bed.Whomyl (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It was absolutely my bad on Tolstoy; as an anarchist myself, I thought communism and geoism were incommensurable. (Honestly, I still don't see how they can be reconciled, but the sources are clear on Tolstoy's advocacy).  I did check the sources listed on the others and didn't see anything stating that these people were Georgists though.  Thank you for the extra sources on Nock.  I think just one that concretely states his advocacy is enough though, so I have removed the other, superfluous sources.  I still have a problem with labeling Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt as Georgists, as I don't think the sources are strong enough to support this claim.  These are the sources cited in the article:


 * Churchill: "From this [passage that doesn't mention Henry George or the single tax], it seems only reasonable to assume that Churchill had imbued the teaching of Henry George, not only as a surface thing, but in its essence."
 * Churchill: "In the U.K., Winston Churchill endorsed the idea. Now, more than 100 years later, Parliament is scheduled in April to debate a bill to explore a land value tax."
 * Roosevelt: "Even Franklin Roosevelt praised George as 'one of the really great thinkers produced by our country. I do not go all the way with him, but I wish that his writings were better known and more clearly understood, for certainly they contain much that would be helpful today.'"


 * For me, the mention of Churchill "endorsing the idea" is too casual to claim that he was a Georgist, but maybe that's just me. As for Roosevelt, I see absolutely nothing in the sources that would justify his inclusion.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. George seems to have a way of speaking directly to and inspiring both individualists and socialists.  FDR's own words, saying that George was one of the few "really great thinkers", whose theories Roosevelt essentially agrees with and thinks would benefit the country, is a pretty good source.  I don't know any Marxist or Rothbardian who agrees completely with Marx or Rothbard.  Why should it be different for Georgists?  But that's just my view.  I'll think about it. — Whomyl (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove "Notable Georgists" section
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks the "Notable Georgists" section is completely out of control. It's a massive list of people—growing all the time—who may or may not have had something nice to say about Georgism once. I don't see how this is acceptable. I propose we remove the section entirely to ensure we aren't prominently displaying original research. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's certainly a radical approach, but I think it would be better than the status quo. bobrayner (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How about spinning it off to a separate article? There's no reason to get rid of sourced information. LK (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, spin it off when it is necessary to do so due to article length. Lev Lafayette (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There must be a point at which the list could get too long, but I think "out of control" is being dramatic. The list is sorted and pretty well cited---I encourage you to look for errors and overreach. It is at the end of the article, so it's not like it interferes with readability... so frankly I fail to understand the ongoing hysteria that it seems to evoke. At a certain point, I have no objections to skinning it off, but I don't see the point now, since it is more useful now while included in the main article. When we finally make an article about the "Single-Tax/Georgist movement", that would be a good place to put the list.Whomyl (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How is this list any worse that all the other lists on Wikipedia? At list this one is organized and cited.... Whomyl (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#Notable_members
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States


 * Whomyl, the first list is a membership list, which is incredibly easy to prove and doesn't require the level of interpretation of sources we see in "Notable Georgists." The second link is a list page, and I support LK's suggestion that we move the "Notable Georgists" list to its own namespace.  I still have sourcing concerns—as I've made known previously—but this solution would at least allow for the continuous growth of the list.  At some point, though, we need to decide on a (more) stringent standard for inclusion as a Georgist.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists ?
 * If I remember correctly, you argued it was impossible to be a georgist and a pacifist, anarchist, liberal, conservative, or anything else really. If you approach it thinking that someone has to be only a georgist to be a georgist, then nobody would qualify... I don't strongly object to moving the list, except to say that I believe it to be more useful where it currently is for now.Whomyl (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We should give it a bit of time in case others who don't visit this page often want to vote.Whomyl (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I stated that I didn't how know one could be a communist (i.e. one who seeks the abolition of private property) and Georgist (i.e. one who wishes to tax private property according to its land value) at the same time. The logic is simple enough: one cannot simultaneously promote and denounce private property... without some amazing mental gymnastics, at least.  In any case, if reliable sources don't clearly identify anyone as a Georgist, then that's exactly how many people ought to be listed as such in this article.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 03:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may wish to check Chapter II, item 1 of the objectives of communists in advanced countries. "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." And that's Marxian communism; not to mention the multitude of other varieties. Lev Lafayette (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some socialists/communists believe in voluntary/anarchist means of collectivizing non-land capital or bringing it under the control of laborers who use it, not so much unlike existing labor unions who buy shares of companies. You removed other people from the list on similar grounds that time... but otherwise, your suggestions and edits have been good in my opinion. So if you think this list is somehow disruptive, then I'm listening.Whomyl (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How about cutting back to top five in each section and moving the list to its own page linked to from this article? That's how we normally treat these type of lists when they start to get too big. See for example the "Cultural impact" section in the "Pirates of Penzance" article which was at one time a big list. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 04:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking as a compromise also: something like top 10.Whomyl (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to see the list reduced to only those whose affiliation with Georgism is explicit in reliable sources. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the list to be insightful, and I would also like to see it remain where it currently is. It shows who supported the ideas of Georgism even if they did not claim to be a Georgist. From what I'm gathering on the history of Notable Georgist edits, it seems as though editors are saying this or that notable person never claimed to be a Georgist proper, although they were supporters of the ideas. People can support ideas from multiple "-isms." How about renaming the list to "Notable Supporters of Georgism." instead of removing it altogether. I find it's better to unify than remove or divide. There are citations that show the mentioned notable people were at least in support of the concept if not outright claiming to be a Georgist. Lbuntu (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that it is possible to infer that someone is a Georgist from the words that they say, but the critics are also right that the standards were too loose in the past, mostly left over from when the section was titled "Influenced by Georgism". As far as I know, at this point, the list no longer has questionable information like that and evidence for most of the remaining names is pretty strong.  FDR was already removed because he said he didn't "go all the way with George". Michael Hudson was left off, despite him working for a Georgist organization, writing georgist essays for a georgist magazine, employing a georgist, and in an essay on georgism, writing, “It is true that overall functions could un-tax labor and capital and make up the difference with a land tax. This is what George said, and it is what I believe and support.” http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hudson-michael_has-georgism-been-hijacked-by-special-interests-2003.html  Whomyl (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing someone that "does not go all the way" seems counter productive to me. If FDR supported Georgist ideas then he should be noted as such. That is also why I think a section name change on this page to something less absolute would be more beneficial for informational purposes. We live in a world of mixed and shared ideas, and like a spectrum they blend into each other. I would like to seen the list of people influenced by the ideas of Georgism published for all to see as well on this page. Perhaps also add another section or area on this page that lists people as outright claiming to be Georgist. Lbuntu (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree that we can infer that people are Georgists; that is precisely the problem with this list. "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." (WP:NLIST)  "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.  The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."  (WP:LISTPEOPLE)  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we can infer that people are Georgists. Of course we cannot infer people as membership of any particular group. I'm saying that we list those people that are supportive of Georgist ideas while not necessarily being a Georgist proper and have another section list that can state if a person was a Georgist. Ideas are shared among different -isms and -ologys. Also, rename the current list to something that reflects the content, such as "Notable People Supportive of Georgist Ideas." I find it better to provide more information transparently rather than less. Lbuntu (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lbuntu, I was referring to Whomyl's statement: "I tend to agree that it is possible to infer that someone is a Georgist from the words that they say." This is exactly what we cannot do.  Also, I would prefer not to broaden the list by changing the section title to something like it was in the past ("Notable people influenced by Georgism").  That might be appropriate for a separate list article, but let's keep this one concise and relevant.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh my apologizes, your indented comment under mine gave me the impression you were responding to me. Your resolution is not much different, and is more like semantics six of this half a dozen of that. Instead of renaming the current list to be more fitting I'm fine with trimming the current list to be more concise and relevant, and then making another list of supporters on the page.
 * No, that was my bad. Thanks!  And I think we are in agreement.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 23:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say otherwise, only that it was *possible* to infer. In only a few cases I disagree. There was not even a word for georgism until the 1890s. Before that, it was just called "The Henry George movement", so it does not seem like original research to interpret someone who says, "I agree with George and support his movement."Whomyl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's possible to infer who is a Georgist but we cannot do that on Wikipedia. We require sources that make clear unequivocal statements that a person is a Georgist. Anything else is OR. I'd support splitting the list out as a separate article but in doing that I'd like to see a review process to make sure we have unequivocal sources for each entry. Joja  lozzo  21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hudson said, "I agree with Henry George on taxation and support that goal." [paraphrasing] That is not enough evidence? I was willing to remove Hudson because he dislikes most georgists and might not want to be in that list, but I believe that is objectively enough evidence.Whomyl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is interpreting this quote about Emma Lazarus O R? Whomyl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "For Emma Lazarus, Henry George’s utopian vision had the force of a revelation: “Your work is not so much a book as an event. The life and thought of no one capable of understanding it can be quite the same after reading it.  For once prove the indisputable truth of your idea, no person who prizes justice or common honesty can dine or sleep or work in peace until the monstrous wrong in which we are all accomplices be done away with.”  If she found herself unable to “dine or sleep or read”, she did manage a sonnet: “Progress and Poverty” after the name of George’s famous book."Whomyl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. First off, what we really want is secondary sources explicitly connecting a person to Georgism.  Barring that, a very clear "I am a Georgist" or "I agree with George" will suffice, assuming it's not paraphrased(!!!).  Neither a note of praise nor a sonnet is enough to qualify one as a Georgist.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 17:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said here and what have said in previous discussions. We need identification by sources not an editor's decision about who is and who isn't a Georgist. This list appears to encourage campaigns to promote Georgism by listing as many people as possible who can be construed to be Georgists. The POV problem is a serious one. Joja  lozzo  00:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whomyl makes a rational case considering the context. The publishing of information does more to promote awareness rather than any kind of campaign, although the latter may happen as well as a result and that doesn't change the information. Also, perhaps there are people that are opposed to the ideas of Gerogism and do not want to see them published, thus vandalism and argumentative harassment occurs. Lbuntu (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for a curated, quality list of notable Georgists, but a list that contains unverifiable, inferred "Georgists" does not constitute Wikipedia quality information. Joja  lozzo  03:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern and offering good ideas. I will remove some less significance figures and double check the citations. In cases where inferences were made, such as with Emma Lazarus extolling George and saying how important it is for his vision to be realized....... I will remove them from the list or find better sources. I'm thinking about Edenhofer at the moment... he says that georgism is economically ideal/optimal, but I doubt he refers to himself in his papers in a way that he would be able to explicitly call himself a "georgist".Whomyl (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, I would like to move most of this list to a new article (maybe about the history of the georgist movement?) where it will not be cumbersome or seem out of place.Whomyl (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds nice. I also think the history of Georgism would be well suited as another section on this article page along with the notable supporters that aren't necessarily declared to be Georgists. Lbuntu (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly a "history of Georgism" referencing these individuals contribution - where relevant -would be much better than the current list, which puts avowed Single Tax advocates like Foldvary in the same bracket as mainstream economists who have commented - sometimes invoking George's name - that land taxes are relatively efficient, often whilst also advocating other forms of taxation George and many of his followers strongly disapproved of. Similarly, whilst Woodrow Wilson might have some wiki-notable source suggesting he sympathised with Georgism, that places rather a heavy weight on one commentators opinion rather than what he actually did, which was to introduce an income tax. Dtellett (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dedicated Georgists were actually a crucial in passing income tax laws, particularly Henry George Jr.. Henry George himself wrote that he would applaud a progressive income tax if it replaced existing taxes on trade and labor that he viewed as much more harmful.  Wilson was a well known Georgist and he intentionally packed the Cabinet with many Georgists.  Like other Georgists, he said that LVT was the best financing tool, but that does not mean every Georgist must be required to denounce all other taxes as equally bad.  People in this talk page have a bad habit of saying that a Georgist must be *only* a georgist, a particular sort of caricature of a Georgism, and nothing more.  It's a ridiculous standard.Whomyl (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, you might be right that the "Economists" list needs verification. Please share your discoveries with the rest of us if you notice errors.Whomyl (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't that Georgists can't also contemplate other taxes. My point is that if a president serves two terms at a time of unprecedented fiscal reform and agitation for land value taxes and opts to introduce an income tax instead of a land value tax, it's quite contentious to unequivocally align him with the philosophy that "[one] may justly demand that from the income gained by his labour not one penny shall be taken, so long as a penny remains of incomes that are gained through monopoly of the opportunities nature offers impartially to all". Few people in history have ever had as much power to shift a national tax base on to land as Woodrow Wilson, yet he shifted it onto labour instead. On the other hand, commentary on the possible influence of George on notable progressives and their support base probably is warranted in a hypothetical "history of Georgism" type article Dtellett (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in flavor of having a reduced list of notable people with strong links to Georgism on this page, with the full list on a separate list page. Also maybe the formatting could be improved four and five column styles look clustered on 14". Jonpatterns (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not progressive
Property taxes are often very regressive in general, because they usually tax retirees on fixed incomes and working class homeowners at the same level as the ultra-rich, resulting in a regressive incidence which would in practice lead to massive foreclosure and further concentration of wealth.

I was dismayed to see that the source supporting the statement that a "land value tax would also have characteristics of a progressive tax" in the introduction is which contradicts that statement and the following clause it is cited again to support. is also cited, but I can't read it, although I note that the search term used to find it was "disadvantages of land value taxation," which hardly inspires confidence, and using the "Look Inside.../Search Inside" features at on the terms "progressive" and "regressive" seems to indicate that the land value tax has been critizised extensively for being the latter and is not considered the former. Finally, is cited in the body of the article, but says nothing about the incidence.

Are there any actual sources supporting the assertion that a land value tax would not be extremely regressive, let alone progressive? EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

All forms of accurate property tax are progressive, but the word itself is sort of ambiguous I suppose, since it is always possible to place even more on the rich. You argue that taking $1 from the richest person and giving it to the poorest person is the most progressive tax, and that therefore wealth taxes are regressive, that that's stretching it. I'm fine with changing it to something like, "LVT is generally regarded as a progressive tax."Whomyl (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry J. Aaron writes that "On balance it appears that [...] that the property tax should be presumed progressive unless proved regressive, instead of the reverse." Also that "land ownership is distributed very progressively with respect to income." (Land value ownership is way more concentrated than improvement value.) Moreover, since land value tax cannot be passed on by landlords to renters, it is unambiguously progressive. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:JcjLOUlhFZIJ:scholar.google.com/+%22land+OR+site+value+tax+OR+taxation%22+progressive+OR+regressive&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Whomyl (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"The (now not so) “new view” proposed by Henry J. Aaron turned all this on its head. Rather than simply an excise tax on housing, this approach sees the average property tax rate across communities as essentially a tax on capital; as such, it is likely to be quite progressive in its incidence." Wallace E. Oates And again, land value "tax" is far more progressive than a regular property tax.Whomyl (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bare assertions by proponents aren't as reliable as third-party sources, preferably from academic literature reviews. Do any such WP:SECONDARY sources put forth an opinion? Does anyone deny that a transitioning to a LVT would force huge numbers of retirees on fixed incomes to sell their homes, and put a similarly insurmountable burden on the working poor who own their farms and homes? EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you glance at the sources? They are The American Economic Review, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Wallace E. Oates, and Henry J. Aaron.  None of those are in any way remotely Georgist, though the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy used to be several decades ago, and Oates very reluctantly acknowledged of the benefits LVT brought to Pittsburgh.Whomyl (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which specific sources? That AER article at the Google cache link admits that property taxes are considered regressive by the entire mainstream, but says, "the property tax should not be thought of as regressive unless and until a model can be found to justify this view." But why do you need a "model" to explain what happens when you are a retiree on a fixed income, and skyrocketing property taxes force you out of your home? EllenCT (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That study is decades old and sort of overturned that conventional thought, which Aaron points out was unsubstantiated speculation. In any case, one low income person in a million paying more does not make a tax regressive. Also, by this rationale, even a wealth tax would be regressive, since a person with low income might have a trust fund or a low yielding CD. Also, keep in mind that this is an LVT we are talking about, not a regular property tax.  As I mentioned below, most homeowners save by replacing property taxes with LVT.  There are many studies showing that to be the case, with a particular benefit to retired owners, at least in some cities, like Pittsburgh. The difference is mostly made up by owners of vacant lots who pay a lot more. There is no good definition of "progressive", so we can change the wording if you think this is misleading.Whomyl (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This paper says there is a old view that property taxes are regressive, since it reduces the supply of housing, and a "new view" (apparently better supported) that property tax is a tax on land and capital, and therefore progressive. These authors go on to point out that a property tax "is progressive to the extent that it falls on land value or expensive homes." A land value tax only falls on land value, so by this criteria, it would be progressive, since contrary to the "old view", tax on land value increases the supply of housing and reduces rent. Whomyl (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=econ_facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DProgressivity%2B%2522land%2BOR%2Bsite%2Bvalue%2Btax%2BOR%2Btaxation%2BOR%2Bcapture%2522%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22Progressivity%20land%20OR%20site%20value%20tax%20OR%20taxation%20OR%20capture%22 Whomyl (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This other paper confirms the reasoning: http://m.masongaffney.org/publications/G17Property_Tax_Progressive_Tax.CV.pdf Whomyl (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The result of extensive analysis and debate has been a revision of the accepted doctrine of a decade ago and given way to a 'new view" where property taxes are paid by either landowners or capital owners, and are therefore progressive. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3145773?sid=21105571426693&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70&uid=2134 Whomyl (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that in empirical studies from the USA and UK, between 65 and 85% of homeowners, especially retired owners, tend to receive tax relief from a tax shift away from existing property taxes and onto land. So at the very least, land value tax is usually more progressive than a property tax, and unlike a property tax, landlords cannot pass on the cost to tenants.Whomyl (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which specific empirical studies? EllenCT (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the ones I have seen. I've never seen a compilation of several of them though. The best I could do is find examples.Whomyl (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that there have been no sources supporting the assertions in the article forthcoming, I propose that the statements currently implying that a property tax such as the LVT is always progressive be replaced with something to the effect that, "It can be progressive to the extent it is structured so that its burden falls on owners of land and on those who own or occupy structures with a higher value," per Bahl, Roy W., Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, and Joan M Youngman (2008) "The property tax in practice" in Making the Property Tax Work: Experiences in Developing and Transitional Countries (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.) EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Land value tax always falls only on owners of land and it always falls more heavily on those with more valuable locations, while whose who do not own property at all are completely exempt, directly and indirectly.Whomyl (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to support the inclusion of anything to the effect that it can't be clearly progressive without some kind of means testing, or at least a retiree or old-age exemption? EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it is a very important issue related to LVT. My suggestion is for you to write a new section on that subject in the "Land value tax" article. This is an incomplete list of alleviations that have been proposed to address the cases when some elderly people would end up paying more an having a hard time moving. http://www.earthrights.net/docs/10alleviations.html Whomyl (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to reading that, but I don't think that belongs in an article about geoism. The word "progressive" itself seems to cause a problem because you can define it however you want; it's relative. The fact is that land is an asset, the largest single asset in any economy, so an LVT is just a targeted wealth tax, with the unique quality that it cannot be passed on at all to people without wealth (unlike all other wealth taxes). It's hard to argue that taxing that capitalized land privilege is not progressive, especially since its ownership is correlated with income, though it may not be as correlated as you would like it to be.Whomyl (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

[Warning: OR] OK, I'm sure I can find sources of all I'm going to say here, but for now, I beg your indulgence. As an economist, this issue is blindingly obvious. First, the burden of a LVT falls exclusively on the landowner, since supply is perfectly inelastic – rents (and renters) are unaffected. Second, wealth distribution (including land ownership) is much more unequal than income distribution. Therefore, the burden of an LVT (like most wealth taxes) would fall mainly on high income households, and would be extremely progressive. I'm sure there are tons of sources stating this. Also, note that an LVT is not a property tax, and will not reduce the amount of housing (a potential source of regressivity). A property tax may reduce the amount of housing, as it is a tax on the value of property, including land, housing and other improvements. A land value tax excludes housing and other improvements. LK (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, here's a good source about the progressivity of a LVT from the World Bank. From page 314 of Agricultural Land Redistribution: Toward Greater Consensus (free PDF available here). I quote: "A land tax is considered a progressive tax in that wealthy landowners normally should be paying relatively more than poorer landowners and tenants. Conversely, a tax on buildings can be said to be regressive, falling heavily on tenants who generally are poorer than the landlords (Netzer 1973). That progressivity occurs because the local supply of land is inelastic, compared with the demand for it. Hence, owners cannot adjust their behavior easily to minimize the tax in the short term by reducing the supply of land to the market. The tax on the site value therefore falls on the suppliers, not the demanders; on the owners of the land, not the tenants." This book references Netzer, Dick. 1973. “The Incidence of Property Tax Revisited.” National Tax Journal 30:515–35, which I presume says the same thing. The first page is here. I'm going to see if I can get the paper through my library, but the first page seems to back up the idea that while taxes on property can be regressive, taxes on land are always progressive. LK (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just read the paper. The main topic of the paper is whether or not property taxes, as currently implemented, are progressive or regressive. The paper decomposes property taxes into a tax on land (LVT), and a tax on structures and improvements. Much of the paper deals with how regressive a tax on structures may be, and whether or not this regressivity may overcome the progressivity of a land tax. In short, the paper backs the assertion that a land value tax is unambiguously progressive. LK (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose you have a suburban neighborhood where the wealthy people live in high-rise condominiums and the poor retirees on fixed income live on subsistence farm plots. Are you saying the condo dwellers wouldn't get a tiny fraction of LVT taxes charged against the retired farmers? EllenCT (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose you have a town where the wealthy people all ride bicycles and the poor retirees on fixed income all drive trucks. Are you saying the condo dwellers won't get a tiny fraction of the fuel taxes charged against the retired farmers? Well, yes, the ex-farmers will pay more. But then the wealthy people aren't going to ride bikes because they're wealthy, they can afford Cadillacs, and one of the points of being wealthy is that people can buy nice stuff. So they will. Not much point in being wealthy otherwise. Similarly with your question about LVT, it's not realistic because wealthy people might live in high-rise condos in Manhattan, where they will pay a lot of LVT but in a suburban neighbourhood only poor people live in condos, and by-and-large, the wealthy don't want people to think they're poor, so most wealthy people wouldn't be seen dead in a suburban high-rise condo. But just supposing that this was an area where all the wealthy were rather eccentric and lived in high-rises, ate mac'n'cheese, bought their clothes from the thrift shops, and rode bicycles, they would still be paying more LVT than the subsistence farmers because unlike condos, subsistence farms have no land value and therefore their LVT would be zero. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Therefore the LVT is not inherently progressive. Do you think retirees on subsistence plots and fixed incomes are not relevant to policymakers? EllenCT (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They should be relevant to policymakers. But going by current taxation policies which make them pay sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc. I find it difficult to believe that they are. Retirees on subsistence plots and fixed incomes would pay no sales tax, no income tax, and $0 in LVT if a Single Tax policy were to be implemented. So the LVT is inherently progressive. However it is progressive relative to land wealth. Since land wealth concentration is even greater than income concentration in the modern world, it is unreasonable to claim that LVT is not inherently progressive. That is why the World Bank says that it is progressive.
 * The fact that the rich can arrange their affairs to avoid tax is irrelevant. Under current tax policies it would be quite straightforward for me to have a net worth of $1,000,000,000 and yet an income of $0. I need merely own a lot of land and do nothing with it beyond what is required to feed myself as the subsistence farmers do in your original example. That hardly means that the income tax is not inherently progressive. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk''
 * An avoidable nominally progressive tax is not an effectively progressive tax. No tax is inherently progressive unless it is effectively progressive. EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ellen, we've already provided sources stating that LVT is progressive. You have provided none that says it is regressive. You seek to create controversy where there is none. Until you can at least show reliable sources that say that a LVT (not a property tax) is regressive, this article should stay as is. LK (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All I am asking is that the nuances in e.g. be accurately reflected. EllenCT (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also an economist and I think this matter is clear. You can find certain examples where any wealth tax might harm the income-poor, just as you can find examples of how a progressive income tax would harm the asset-poor. As I mentioned before, all wealth tax can be seen as regressive in that light (land value tax least of all, by the way). There is a place for that sort of discussion about the minutia, but I am not sure it is here.  If you want to add a line stating that, in certain circumstances, cash poor landowners might have to sell, or that a large construction company might save money, then I won't object, but I think a list of unlikely counter-examples would be out of place.Whomyl (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Progressive Taxation as Defined by Wikipedia
Wikipedia, in common with most economists, defines a progressive tax as "a tax where the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases". A Land Value Tax certainly could be set with a variable rate with those owning higher-value land paying a larger proportion of that larger quantity of land's underlying value ). This scope for potential progressivity isn't discussed in the text though nor was it for proposed in Progress and Poverty. As far as I'm aware, the LVT far more commonly proposed as a fixed proportion of land value, just as an unambiguously non-progressive "flat tax" on income is a fixed proportion of income, with rich people paying more of the tax base but only directly in proportion to their larger share of income income. In that conventional sense many LVT proposals are not progressive against land value; larger landowners paying more, but only in direct proportion to their larger share of land rent. Whether they are considered progressive or regressive against shares of income/wealth likely depends hugely on the individual region. I've revised to the less controversial wording that the LVT is sometimes considered to have characteristics similar to progressive tax, which I believe is similar to wording of the article relatively recently, as well as consistent with the qualified support for LVT progressivity in the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtellett (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And in fact that type of super-progressive LVT was levied by the New Zealand government in the early 20th century to very good effect in reducing inequality in New Zealand at the time. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk''
 * Right after that, "a wealth or property tax,[8] a sales tax on luxury goods, or the exemption of sales taxes on basic necessities, may be described as having progressive effects as it increases the tax burden of higher income families and reduces it on lower income families." I believe that recently the wording we used on this page was "land value tax can be said to have progressive effects."  I propose to return to that wording. Whomyl (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "can be said to have" mean and why isn't it redundant with "has"? Isn't what you are trying to say is that a LVT will be progressive if it includes specific exemptions or sufficient credits for poor landowners on fixed incomes? EllenCT (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to write something about methods of making early stages of LVT more progressive than it already is, that might be a valuable contribution and I look forward to reading it. Start a new section in this article if you would like or in the land value tax article would be even better.  You can start here: http://www.earthrights.net/docs/10alleviations.html  I would also note that mortgage write-downs and other compromises are possible.  Thanks. Whomyl (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have only seen one empirical article suggesting that LVT might be regressive, and it used bad/unclear methodology. Obviously if you look at two different properties, each with the same land value, and one of them has a huge house, then the person with a huge house would benefit more by replacing taxes on buildings.  It also did not consider long-run effects or other landholdings; it just compared homeowners against other homeowners. All we really need to know is that land value is highly correlated to income that the charge cannot be passed onto renters.  LVT's exact progressivity will depend on many factors in any specific place, including which taxes, if any, LVT is proposed to replace.Whomyl (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Only a tax that is a % of income or capital can be regressive or progressive as it is dependant on individual circumstances. LVT is a charged fixed to a land title. Even if the rate changes across land values, it is still flat on a individual title. So, LVT can only ever be flat. So, the whole assertion that LVT to progressive is wrong. However, that's not the same as saying wealthier people wouldn't be paying more overall that they currently do. They would by quite some margin. In the UK, the top 1% of households own three times more land by value than they pay in taxes. So, under LVT they would pay 3 times more, or downsize and lose the equivalent value in economic welfare. Also Ellen CT point is only relevant about the transitional phase to a new tax, not the tax itself. Every change to the tax system produces winners and losers. That doesn't make it progressive/regressive. Although, as I've pointed out, this is irrelevant when it applies to user fees like LVT. Hope this helps. 13:13 19 January 2015 (GMT)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.144.215 (talk)

Actual reliable sources
Are there any sources showing the observed incidence of a land value tax in practice from a jurisdiction where it was enacted? EllenCT (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's one. http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/04_01.pdf -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk''
 * It says "land taxes are more progressive than capital value taxes," but I'm not sure that's saying much. Where do you see the observed incidence? EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I misread your request. I was providing you with a source on progressivity, not incidence. I'll search further. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 04:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the most simple and obvious analysis, the tax incidence for LVT is exactly the same as where the tax is initially placed. This is not in dispute by anyone; since the supply of land is fixed, LVT falls only on landlords and not on workers or tenants.  Furthermore, the more sophisticated analysis of LVT, based on efficiency gains from ad valorem taxation, mean that almost everyone, certainly every renter, will benefit; that is without even accounting for the efficiency gains of removing taxes on labor, trade, and investment.  I already found an article analyzing long-run incidence; it showed that something like 94% of people benefited from LVT and that the poor benefited more than the rich.  It was not directly linked to incomes, but there is already a source in the article saying that land ownership is highly correlated to incomes.Whomyl (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed the citation to that article. Do you have a url for it? EllenCT (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Identifying John Kenneth Galbraith
I'm rather astonished that John Kenneth Galbraith is listed as a notable Georgist without caveat or more substantive citation than that offered. The reference in question only says that Galbraith did not agree entirely with Henry George, but read his works with great interest -- hardly the sort of proof needed to identify him as a ideological adherent. Given that Galbraith is elsewhere identifying quite strongly as belonging to the Keynesian and Instiutionalist schools, I propose to delete his name from the list here and from the parallel list on the Schools of economic thought page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicolaMinor (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He actually said, "I am not a full devotee of Henry George but there is no one in the social world that I read with more intense interest," which is much stronger language. Perhaps it would help for you to imagine replacing the name "Henry George" with another to see how it sounds to you then. Furthermore, being a Keynesian and institutionalist is *completely* irrelevant. You can see that more clearly by noticing that if you applied the same logic, it would be impossible for a Keynesian to also be an institutionalist.  However, I don't object to removing his name, since I am not sure how reliable the source is.Whomyl (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I, too, don't see that as sufficient justification to label Galbraith a Georgist. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 17:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you start out saying you're not a full devotee of someone you're interested in, that means you're an enthusiast at best, but not a follower in the usual sense. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Devotee" is a very strong word, and "not a full devotee" still means he was a follower of George's ideas. However, I see your point, since he only mentioned George one other time that I am aware of, saying that George's idea in Progress and Poverty was "notably compelling".Whomyl (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Winston Churchill as Notable Georgist
The sources provided are-


 * Ethical Economics


 * Wall Street Journal

The first one says he read 'Progress and Poverty' thought some of the ideas where good. The second just says, he endorsed land tax, but doesn't say how. Does this quality Churchill as a Georgist? Jonpatterns (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the WSJ article was about Georgists, and the claim was something along the line of "Churchill was a notable supporter of the idea." At least when he was younger, Churchill was one of the most articulate Georgists in history, right up there with Henry George and the proto-georgist Thomas Paine. He made a point of not mentioning George by name though, so if the WSJ article is not sufficient, then we will probably need to remove him from the list. Anyone else have an opinion? Speaking as a georgist myself, the truth is obvious, so my assessment of the source may be biased by that knowledge of the fact.Whomyl (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I removed him since the WSJ wasn't clear if he was a supporter of georgism or just land taxes.Whomyl (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Mason Gaffney writes that some of Churchill's speeches were ghost-written by Georgists: "In England, parts of Lloyd George’s budget speech of 1909 could have been written by Henry George himself. Some of Winston Churchill’s speeches were written by Georgist ghosts."Whomyl (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats interesting, almost warrants a separate article on Churchill's speech writers. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be fascinating. Not sure if Mason Gaffney cited a source for that. He is a font of obscure knowledge and still writing now in his 90s. It explains why I was so certain Churchill and Lloyd George were Georgists.  I still am pretty certain Churchill was, but I'm not sure if it is possible to verify that.  Lloyd George certainly at least pretended to be a Georgist, but again, it is hard to verify his true beliefs at that time of his life.Whomyl (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806130249/http://henrygeorge.org:80/mumia.htm to http://www.henrygeorge.org/mumia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/tidemanglobaljustice.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806130249/http://henrygeorge.org:80/mumia.htm to http://www.henrygeorge.org/mumia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Georgism a form of socialism?
Georgism is not based on social or public ownership of the means of production (capital equipment). Land by itself does not constitute the means of production, it is only one factor input. Moreover, I have never read a serious economic text that considers Georgism to be a form of socialism - but I might be mistaken. I'm sure the movement might have been criticized as "socialist", with "socialist" used as an epithet rather than a technical description. So is it accurate to include Georgism in the Socialism sidebar and the Socialist sidebar on this page? - Battlecry 02:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070806130249/http://henrygeorge.org:80/mumia.htm to http://www.henrygeorge.org/mumia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progress.org/views/editorials/geoism-explained/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104040047/http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm to http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214070335/http://cooperativeindividualism.org/leubuscher-frederic_bolton-hall.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/leubuscher-frederic_bolton-hall.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604102744/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/eckert-charles_henry-george-sound-economics-and-the-new-deal-1935.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/eckert-charles_henry-george-sound-economics-and-the-new-deal-1935.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006175720/http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org:80/cej/the-school-of-economic-science.html to http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/cej/the-school-of-economic-science.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Distributist response?
In a debate on this topic which was held in the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century (the article names Aldous Huxley as adherent), I'd be surprised to the highest if none of G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Cecil Chesterton and the rest of the Distributists expressed their views on the matter. Does anyone know about such a response?--131.159.76.209 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303234646/http://www.masongaffney.org/essays/Henry_George_100_Years_Later.pdf to http://masongaffney.org/essays/Henry_George_100_Years_Later.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924001239/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Altgeld%20on%20Henry%20George.pdf to http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Altgeld%20on%20Henry%20George.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.hgclub.com.au/history.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/cej/the-school-of-economic-science.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604042754/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wrigley-adrian_location-value-covenants-2010-06.pdf to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wrigley-adrian_location-value-covenants-2010-06.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724030349/http://www.georgiststudies.org/george100years.html to http://www.georgiststudies.org/george100years.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717015930/http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/candeloro-dominic_single-tax-movement-and-progressivism-1979.htm to http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/candeloro-dominic_single-tax-movement-and-progressivism-1979.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213223137/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_aldous-huxley-on-the-land-question-1989.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_aldous-huxley-on-the-land-question-1989.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215751/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_henry-george-the-scholar-1940.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_henry-george-the-scholar-1940.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223055828/http://maclarenfoundation.net/life1.htm to http://www.maclarenfoundation.net/life1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004212820/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/russell-bertrand_admiration-for-henry-george-1960.jpg to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/russell-bertrand_admiration-for-henry-george-1960.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412105846/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/einstein-albert_letters-to-anna-george-demille-1934.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/einstein-albert_letters-to-anna-george-demille-1934.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812144900/http://www.business.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2325322/Jane-McNab-Jacqueline-Tuck-Final-b-HETSA-Paper-2013.pdf to http://www.business.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2325322/Jane-McNab-Jacqueline-Tuck-Final-b-HETSA-Paper-2013.pdf
 * Added tag to http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache%3AJcjLOUlhFZIJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F+%22land+OR+site+value+tax+OR+taxation%22+progressive+OR+regressive&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810011003/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgh/scots.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgh/scots.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605080303/http://smarttaxes.org/2012/07/24/land-and-money-reform-synergy-in-new-zealand/ to http://smarttaxes.org/2012/07/24/land-and-money-reform-synergy-in-new-zealand/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531110700/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bille-frank_danish-american-georgist-1964.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bille-frank_danish-american-georgist-1964.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113053410/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/barker-charles_followers-of-henry-george-1953.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/barker-charles_followers-of-henry-george-1953.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529145606/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/george-henry_a-response-to-richard-ely-on-the-question-of-compensation-to-land-owners-1887.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/george-henry_a-response-to-richard-ely-on-the-question-of-compensation-to-land-owners-1887.html
 * Added tag to http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/churchill-winston_mother-of-all-monopolies-1909.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203004921/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hayes-rutherford_henry-george-1887.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hayes-rutherford_henry-george-1887.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428034615/http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Economics/when-progressive-taxation-made-detroit-a-powerhouse.html to http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Economics/when-progressive-taxation-made-detroit-a-powerhouse.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101042450/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_f-h.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_f-h.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006085910/http://www.thenewandancientstory.net/home/post-capitalism to http://www.thenewandancientstory.net/home/post-capitalism
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150908183320/http://www.akimoo.com/2013/the-economic-thinking-of-jose-marti-legacy-foundation-for-the-integration-of-america/ to http://www.akimoo.com/2013/the-economic-thinking-of-jose-marti-legacy-foundation-for-the-integration-of-america/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213224036/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/norris-kathleen_errors-of-marxism-1940.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/norris-kathleen_errors-of-marxism-1940.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911001701/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lebrun-victor_leo-tolstoy-and-henry-george-1966.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lebrun-victor_leo-tolstoy-and-henry-george-1966.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101010830/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_i-l.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_i-l.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505024740/https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/313754546486796288 to https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/313754546486796288
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224085337/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schwartzman-jack_a-remembrance-of-anna-george-de-mille-and-agnes-de-mille-1993.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schwartzman-jack_a-remembrance-of-anna-george-de-mille-and-agnes-de-mille-1993.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213045/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_albert-jay-nock-on-henry-george.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_albert-jay-nock-on-henry-george.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213224031/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/butler-nicholas-murray_progress-and-poverty-1931-01.pdf to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/butler-nicholas-murray_progress-and-poverty-1931-01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808060133/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Land_Belongs_to_People_Everyman_Darrow_1916.pdf to http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Land_Belongs_to_People_Everyman_Darrow_1916.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030071512/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/maccallum-spencer_alternative-georgist-tradition-1997-02.pdf to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/maccallum-spencer_alternative-georgist-tradition-1997-02.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224111525/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-john_fighting-for-fundamentals-1928.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-john_fighting-for-fundamentals-1928.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

property taxes?
Duh, doesn't virtually every locality in the US levy taxes on real estate? Some instead of an income tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.57 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm pretty sure that just about everybody knows that. What's your point? -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk

An alternative Georgist proposal which has the same effect
A MORE STEALTHY GEORGIST CAT  2019 Macrocompassion 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

Sufficient cash returns to the Gov’ment’s till.

With the land properly shared, the government sees

That site development stays with the current leasees.

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. 45.80.91.49 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That Durn 18-Year Business Cycle
Alough we have a good explanation of what happens during this cycle and in particular how it is affected by land ownership, we have yet to discover why it is every 18 years. Below I am adding an explanation related to the wobble of the moon. This is not some crazy idea, this cycle is significant for mangrove plants progress too.

‘Lunar wobble’ influences mangrove growth Long-term fluctuations in the Moon’s orbit — known as the lunar wobble — could influence mangrove canopy growth. Researchers in Australia used high-resolution satellite images to measure mangrove canopy across the continent between 1987 and 2020. They found that the wobble, which pulls low tides lower and high tides higher in a cyclic pattern that lasts about 18 years, was a major factor in the expansion and contraction of mangrove growth. Depending on the phase of wobble, mangrove ecosystems get less water — resulting in thinner canopy cover — or higher tides that increase growth. Mangroves are natural carbon sinks, so the findings could help to better assess how much carbon they will store over time. Science Alert Reference: Science Advances paper. 45.80.91.32 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Revertion of r/georgism addition
Not needed - no source presented that shows the relevance of the undoing. There are wikipedia reverts about everything, but it's not a reason to do it here or to any other article. Consider revising the revision of the revision. Kyleck (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)