First of all, I would like to apologize to all of you on behalf of my English. Since I am a foreigner, I may not be able to express myself correctly. I hope it will be understandable.

As you know, universities are centers where highly skilled workforce is trained and research activities are concentrated, where knowledge and technology are produced, and are the arteries where the produced knowledge and technology spread to society. Ideally, universities should have administrative autonomy, economic autonomy, and independence from political and religious influences. Administrative autonomy is simple and can be easily established by law. Especially in many public universities, they can elect their own administrators through their own election systems and carry out their activities without government intervention, thanks to their autonomy recognized by law. But their economic autonomy is limited. Many public universities depend on public funding. Cutting off financial resources flowing to universities through neoliberalization may result in increased student fees or increased dependence on commercial enterprises. This not only results in bosses exploiting university resources for the sake of short-term profits, but also causes serious damage to academic autonomy by making the academy more dependent on the market. Public financing may provide a counterbalance to the commercial pressure of the private sector and provide some economic autonomy, but it is not sufficient. What needs to happen is that the University has its own sources of income, independent of the government and employers. Here, land value tax is a blessing.

I have a solution suggestion against this. It is similar to the land grant university system that was previously implemented and successful in the USA. First, let's imagine a hypothetical city where land value tax is applied. We declare a large and empty land on the outskirts of the city as a university district. We are transferring the management and operation of this region to the university. This will provide the university with serious administrative and economic autonomy. Then, we provide this region with all the modern infrastructure the university needs. This infrastructure may include all the facilities and tools that a modern university needs, such as public transportation network, energy, clean water, purification, faculty buildings, research centers, research hospitals, laboratories, libraries, museums, student dormitories, staff lodgings, dining halls, and free wifi. . This infrastructure can be financed by land value tax collected from the city. Apart from the contribution of all this infrastructure to the university's activities, it will be a serious subsidy to the university as it increases the land value. The university will later declare this region a technocity, and entrepreneurial and innovative companies will come to the region to benefit from advantages such as the concentration of qualified manpower and the concentration of science and technology production activities in this region, all of which will increase the land value. These innovative IT and technology companies will pay fees to benefit from facilities and tools such as land rent and university-owned research facilities. In this way, I think we can give the university serious bargaining power. Moreover, it will not need to be financed by the government. Moreover, they will not be dependent on the short-term profits of private sector bosses. The university will own the land and properties, almost like a real estate company. All commercial enterprises will depend on the university for their operations. They can give scholarships to students provide them with internship opportunities and job opportunities.

There seem to be two practical ways this can be implemented

1. To give universities the right to collect rent based on 100 percent of the land value by law. Whether it is collected correctly or not can be ensured through independent auditing bodies such as the government, private sector and NGOs.

2-Universities finance themselves by renting or selling land and properties for maximum profit

All of these can play a role in financing the large-budget research and development activities of universities. It can give them serious administrative and economic autonomy and reward productive labor with the rent taken from non-productive land. What do you think about it? Which one is better?

As many of you are aware by now, Detroit, under mayor Mike Duggan, has made a recent proposal to cut the city's property tax, one that falls the heaviest on buildings, and cover the lost revenue with a land value tax.

Even though it doesn't seem like it, Detroit actually did try out George's policy recommendations at one point in its history. From 1889-1897, at the peak of George's popularity, Detroit mayor Hazen S. Pingree implemented a heavy dosage of his reforms, increasing taxes on land and decreasing taxes on labor, resulting in a multi-decade city-wide boom. The specifics of it are detailed by Mason Gaffney and Polly Cleveland.

The monumental impact of Pingree's reforms would continue on far after his death. By 1930, Detroit's population had gone from just above 200,000 in 1890 to almost 1.6 million, all in a 40 year span.

For his role in making Detroit one of the Great Cities of the United States of America, Pingree was named the third greatest mayor in American history Only falling behind fellow Georgist Tom L. Johnson of Cleveland and Fiorello La Guardia of New York.

With the land value tax plan advocated about 135 years later, it seems that Detroit is trying to get back the prosperity it felt under Pingree's leadership. What remains to be seen now is if the plan can be passed, and Detroit can bring itself back to better days.

Hazen S. Pingree

Hello! I have often wondered how Georgists feel about easements and deed restrictions.

When I see questions about preservation of open space on this sub, most folks default To the answer that “most parks and natural areas are already owned by the government “. It’s a lot more complicated than that in reality - a lot of land (and I mean a lot) is privately owned or owned by a non profit, but with a conservation or similar easement on the property - sometimes by choice of the land owner alone, sometimes as part of a public-private partnership between local government and the landowners. Often there is a tax incentive for the land owner.

Realistically, there are thousands (millions?) of acres of natural areas that are preserved from development due to some unique ecological, cultural, or historical aspect …. But many of the areas are technically privately owned but have an easement or deed restriction on them.

The preservation of that land seemingly has some public benefit (ecological, historic or cultural) - But it certainly might not be the most efficient use of the land.

Land ownership is so complicated right now - areas we think of as contiguous “parks” might have a dozen owners and as many easements or access agreements. How does Georgism Handle this complexity ?

Verses from Quran: To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth, and to Him ˹alone˺ is the everlasting devotion. Will you then fear any other than Allah?(Surah An-Nahl-52)

Surely to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. Surely Allah's promise is ˹always˺ true, but most of them do not know.(Surah Yunus-55)

To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.(Surah Ali 'Imran-129)

Then We made you successors in the land after them so that We may observe how you will do.(Surah Yunus-14)

It is clearly seen in these verses that everything on earth and in the sky belongs to Allah and is His property. However, the right of use was left to the human being as an heir. Since it is his property, he determines how we will use it, and he must also have sent us a user manual, here is the book and the messenger. Do people think they will be left without purpose?(Surah Al Qiyamah-36)

Ayah al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:188. Do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, nor deliberately bribe authorities in order to devour a portion of others' property, knowing that it is a sin.

This verse can be said to be the most important evidence. Air, water, soil (including underground resources) were not produced by anyone. Therefore, no one has the right to surround a piece of water or land that belongs to everyone and say that it is mine. May compensate the community for the right to use it or may become public property directly. Everyone's property must not be used for the benefit of a minority this is injustice(prohibited). The Quran clearly draws attention to landowners who bribe officials for that and says that this is a great sin.Today, lobbying the government to protect the monopoly and claiming privilage of landowners is prohibited. It is forbidden to bribe politicians for all this

Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever and Seeing.(Surah An Nisa-58)

Indeed, Allah commands justice, grace, as well as generosity to close relatives. He forbids indecency, wickedness, and aggression. He instructs you so perhaps you will be mindful.(Surah An Nahl-90)

Bonus hadith: Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:

الْمُسْلِمُونَ شُرَكَاءُ فِي ثَلَاثٍ فِي الْمَاءِ وَالْكَلَإِ وَ النَّارِ

“Muslims have three things in common: Water, pasture and fire. (Sunan Abu Dawood(It is considered a reliable source by Sunni Muslims.))

Mentioning these three things in the hadith does not imply any limitation. However, it is a type of expression made through analogy. The verdict of these three things; It also applies to things that can be easily obtained and used. For example; Many entities such as oil, gas, minerals, salt, matches, tar, rivers, seas, lakes, stones, trees in forests, wood, charcoal, fish in the seas, wild birds, pastures and solar energy are subject to the rule of water, fire and pasture. . (Source:El-Hûlî, el-Behî, es-Servetü Fî Zılli’l İslâm)

Anyone have articles, blogposts, or long form Georgist critiques of California’s Prop 13?

Having lived here all my life I think I can criticize it well enough but I’d like to read what other (way more intelligent) Georgists have to say about it. I only know of Lars Doucet criticizing it in passing.

Bonus if they’re GeoLibertarian specifically but as long as they’re articulate. And I’d appreciate comments of course.

i.e Whats the elevator pitch to busy, everyday people not looking to nerd into the economics of it?

I've been listening to Progress and Poverty on audio book during my commutes and I find it very compelling in general. Aside from making very persuasive moral arguments and prophetic insights about the development of technology in a capitalist society grounded in private property, Henry George also writes with wonderful beauty and clarity which is something that is not true of certain other 19th century economic thinkers I could mention.

There is one thing I can't understand is how improvements which are the products of labor are separated from land in practice. It doesn't seem impossible or even difficult to appraise them separately and determine the LVT based on land value before any improvements. But if I can't or won't pay my LVT or if someone outbids me and is now entitled to the land then would they also have to buy from me whatever is on the land that cannot be moved before taking possession or would they get it for no additional cost, or would the improvements be destroyed by the government before the new user took possession?

Certainly you would have to be able to safely build on land in order to keep the product of your labor which is central tenet of Georgism. So far all he has said is that the "Greater takes the lesser to its bosom" or something like that. Which I take to mean that improvements that are the result of labor would be subsumed into the value of the land. But then at what point? Upon the death of the builder or when someone outbids the LVT?

If someone was willing to pay an LVT (based on the value of the land not including that of the house) for my house that i built which I could not pay would i then lose my investment in building the house? If i had to match their bid until it included the value of the house wouldn't I essentially be paying taxes on the products of my own labor which is precisely what Georgeism is opposed to?

This seems like a very basic question so I am sure it has been addressed somewhere and probably a link will suffice but I haven't been able to find a quick answer. I have a few more chapters left so maybe Henry George addresses this question but I am getting kind of impatient so I thought i would ask here now if someone is willing to take the time to help me understand this i would appreciate it.

My dad has 1 1/2 acre. I’ve been thinking of creating a sort of permaculture garden out of the whole yard, though it would take years. So it’s a 2 bedroom house, and a large yard that doesn’t get used, not even a lawn, just trees and manzanita. Would a land value tax be as affordable as the current dirt cheap California property tax?

I’ll make it clear that I think it’s absurd how cheap property taxes are in CA. I think it should be higher.

I guess I’m trying to wrap my head around how it would work with ranches and farms with 100+ acres and homesteaders with 10-20 acres. Some people do want land and they want to be able to use it sustainably and work with nature. I think farming should change as a practice. A lot of homesteaders practice alternative methods of farming that work on a small scale, and could work with something bigger.

Thoughts on that? Maybe this has been asked before and if so I’ll delete this post and look on other threads.

I deliberately avoided asking "Where could it do the most good?" since A) I think it could do good everywhere and B) simple math dictates it would have the most positive impact in urban areas per capita. So, assuming a Georgist political party with a platform advocating LVT (with a reduction in income tax hopefully supplanted by its elimination once established) coupled with the public ownership of utilitlies in line with orthodox Georgist theory, where do you think the most fertile ground would be for such a party to grow? My immediate thought is the western Sunbelt/Rocky Mountain states, since several of them have a libertarian tradition that could gel well, the large expanses of rural land being taxed at a lower rate would poll well, and the fact that several are ground zero for monopolist resource overexploitation would make such a platform as I've described in the most basic terms appealing. The fact that neighboring Nebraska has public power and South Dakota has public banking is another plus in the column. What do you all think?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C46eaVhvwYK/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Caption:

"CA Buyer: Buying a house in the Midwest for $200,000 and shipping it to CA....."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joes.12340

Figure TLV total land value -- not total rental value -- is at least 4X the reparations land value.

Here one of the greatest demogogues against LVT gives away the ranch on TLV.

https://www.nysun.com/article/as-reparations-debate-rages-question-arises-how-much-would-40-acres-and-a-mule-cost-in-2023

Don't you love it when shills self anniliate?

I hope to eventually get credit for pushing this calculation.

I get the arguments for a LVT. Did George advocate for a particular way of spending the resulting revenues? Or is there a whole range of Georgisms from right-wing spend it all on military budget, to left wing spend it all on social welfare, education and reducing inequality?