larsiusprime

Varies highly from country to country. Also as the article itself points out where it offers critiques of the Ethiopian system, the details matter a lot.

I believe the argument is the dominant mosquito species are themselves invasive to the continent

Theres also like an entire previous article linked which discusses the published literature which you are free to read if you like

I see how it works but all you're doing is making more efficient use of the given parcel of land. The value of the land already prices in its development potential. A parcel that could legally, physically, and feasibly accommodate a high rise will be worth more.

Author here. My actual point is:

- I've spent the last five years dutifully responding to each and every criticism I've found online. My entire original article series was about responding to the three most significant critiques of the movement. On my blog you can find many other such replies to critiques that have come in since then.

- This is important to do for epistemic reasons. However, it has nothing to do with actually changing things. You simply do not change the world by responding to your most hard-bitten critics. That's an entirely orthogonal problem.

(author here) Another thing I've noticed is that you never know how or what will happen until you try. I was following legislation in one state and learned that literally dozens of people from all kinds of organized opposition came out to testify against a proposed bill and it quickly died in committee, exactly the kind of brutal pushback that demoralizes people against trying. Then, Jackson Arnold's experience in Kentucky was almost the exact opposite. He approached a local government official, who got excited about it but needed a state enabling law. The official in turn got in touch with a state republican, who basically went "seems fine," and inserted it into a giant omni bill, and it sailed through the legislature. Now they're working on local implementation.

You never know until you try.

The standard reform we actually pitch is a revenue neutral swap for existing property taxes. The tax we are reducing is the building tax, shifted onto land instead.

I co-wrote the article. Neither Greg nor I are single taxers. We think LVT is better than a poorly designed wealth tax, but we are not single tax maximalists.

Well Mamdani's pied-a-tierre tax was specifically a real estate tax, levied on the real estate of people who don't have residency in the city. It's a marginal tax in the grand scheme of things, but unlike the billionaire wealth tax, it actually works, because the real estate can't move. And the owners can't just threaten to leave because they've already left, that's why the tax hits them.

Lars here. I run the Center for Land Economics with Greg (we wrote the OP blog post). We are not maximalist single taxers.

Henry George was obviously a Single Taxer, but "Georgism" has a generally broader meaning than that. Some Georgists are single taxers, but not all, including Greg and I.

When we talk to elected officials, we don't even talk about Henry George all that much (I did in the ACX article series because it all started with the progress and poverty book review). We mostly speak of "Land value return" and our focus is mostly on pragmatic revenue neutral tax shifts to LVT.

I wouldn't say it's coordinated. This is an old article, published in June. A lot of people came to the land economics blog from the ACX article that ran today, someone likely saw this one and then posted it to HN.

The linked study in OP shows that the single biggest beneficiary of Prop 13 on a category basis was vacant land.

> it seems like you're not taxed for the things you build on your land, but instead for the things other people built around your land.

Correct.

The article includes a section on land valuation that gets into those details.