"You know Labor Theory of Property is wrong but still believe there is exploitation in the system."

"You can't pass a city parking lot without remarking on how little they are taxed."

"You're obsessed with cats."

In Georgism, the land value tax (LVT) discourages land speculation by taxing the unimproved value of the land.

In our open-source legal modeling, we took this a step further into dynamic usufruct: you have absolute, inviolable possession of a dwelling as long as you actively live in it, but if a property sits genuinely abandoned without an active sabbatical declaration, ownership reverts back to the community land pool. No landlords, no vacant secondary homes held as speculative assets.

The hard question is enforcement: How do you determine whether a home is genuinely abandoned versus someone just taking a prolonged hospital stay or extended family trip, without creating an intrusive bureaucracy of municipal inspectors or invasive smart-meter surveillance?

Have any legal trusts, intentional communities, or land-reform scholars found a clean, decentralized legal mechanism to prevent property abandonment without spying on citizens?

France needs to read my paper - Wilsons Blog

There are a lot of posts here stating "when we say only tax land we mean only tax land" which I presume means not to tax things like gas. I'm not sure I understand this rationale.

Driving in the US is one is the most regressively funded elements of our society. Drivers who make a personal decision to drive for their own convenience are costing the tax payers huge amounts of money per vehicle mile traveled whereas those who take public transit, bike, or walk take way less.

If we want to have a society where we fund solutions to excessive traffic, pollution, vehicle deaths, and incentivize alternatives that are better for society, shouldn't we, at a minimum, make drivers pay their fair share?

This isn't even getting at a behavioral tax that could be justified by negatives that aren't covered in the monetary cost of driving, like pollution, injury and death risk to others, noise and stress, etc.

If Georgism justifies private property through labor, why shouldn't an inventor have exclusive ownership of an invention? And if intellectual property cannot be exclusively owned because ideas are non-rivalrous, why should labor alone establish exclusive ownership of other resources?

Georgism seems to offer some valuable solutions to human social problems, but I’m wondering how ecology and biodiversity would fare under such a system?

Take a patch of high biodiversity woodland, surrounded by farmland. Its unimproved value is relatively low and so is its land tax overtime suburbs replace the farmland, the woodland lots are unimproved value changes due to altered land use around it. Ultimately the owner is compelled to sell it because it produces no financial income, even though it offers a lot of value to wildlife and indirectly to humans simply by existing. The new owner is incentivised to clear it to produce income to pay land tax and that intangible value is lost.

What modifications could be made to Georgist policy to accommodate this and preserve the intangible value of
wild spaces?

If AI truly replaces human labor and therefore AI is able to create productive capital — then the only factor of production that matters is land, right?

In such a scenario — land (finite resources) would be the only factor of production to tax. No?

If LRVT makes housing more affordable a subsidy will just make housing less affordable in California.

As the US slowly but steadily starts embracing EVs, one thing I was thinking was what would happen to all of the gas stations built over the years that are becoming obsolete. Unlike gas stations, EV chargers can be installed pretty much wherever you want, so there's no need to have dedicated land solely for charging. There are plenty of cases of former gas stations being repurposed into housing or businesses. Here is an example here in Los Angeles.

However, the problem with much of the land that gas stations sit on is they have become contaminated over the years. I know there are government grants to fund the cleanup of these former sites called the EPA Brownfields Grant, but how much is it really? Can we legally force gas station companies to clean up the land before closing? While some gas stations are out in middle of nowhere, there are many in large cities like Los Angeles that are located in plots that are prime real-estate, and are perfect for redevelopment. However they often sit empty for years due to the cost of cleaning.....

Just how much would it cost for a cleanup of all the sites for future redevelopment?