Talk:Georgism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 [1] which contradicts that statement and the following clause it is cited again to support. [2] 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 [3] 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, [4] 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)

@Lawrencekhoo: 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 | 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 | 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. [5] 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 | 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 | 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 | 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)

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. Jojalozzo 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. Jojalozzo 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#Michael_Hudson, at the end of the section @Whomyl: states that Hudson said he believed some of the same things as George.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: 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. Jojalozzo 01:35, 12 May 2014 (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)

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)