“Otherwise” is doing a lot of work here. The people can’t “otherwise” move there because the person isn’t selling, that’s the idea. Taxing people so they are forced to sell is forcing them out. Not taxing people so they are not forced to sell is letting them stay there. You’ve yet to explain why the people who do live there have less of a claim to the house than the wealthier people who would buy it from them.

> Never mind that it's the wealthy are the ones who benefit from elimination of property taxes.

Yes nevermind that since its not even true.

> It's society that makes the property valuable in the first place, so it makes sense to pay society back.

This reifies “society” as a thing-in-itself rather than properly considering society as consisting of the people who own the properties and make them valuable by their ownership, maintenance, and use. Then it equivocates “society” with the actual government that collects the taxes and decides how they are spent (typically routing them to their friends who sell goods and services to the government).

> The firefighters, schools, and social workers in your area need to get paid extra to account for the cost of living increases.

Cost of living increases like land value tax? Like how landlords pass increased taxes and maintenance onto their tenants?

> That money should come from the people benefit the most from their services, the property owners.

Its not at all clear that property owners benefit disproportionately from social services, and they also pay for those services through taxes.

I think most of this recent fascination with Georgism is a result of California tax policy and doesn’t withstand a cursory economic analysis.

> Taxing people so they are forced to sell is forcing them out.

That's still very much overstretching the word "force." If the government taxes a cigarette factory out of existence, are they "forcing" the workers to move if they need to do so to find another job?

> You’ve yet to explain why the people who do live there have less of a claim to the house than the wealthier people who would buy it from them.

I view this as a meaningless philosophical question. There are so many ways that life can be unfair. Being taxed into selling your home at a huge profit is just not a concern I care about.

> Like how landlords pass increased taxes and maintenance onto their tenants?

This is completely untrue. Rent is solely dependent on supply and demand. Demand is elastic, and supply is very inelastic and even more so in highly desirable cities, so it doesn't get very affected by a tax. If property taxes get passed down to tenants, Prop 13 would have passed the tax savings onto renters, which it clearly has not.

> Its not at all clear that property owners benefit disproportionately from social services, and they also pay for those services through taxes.

Financially, a renter would be fine if their home burns down, becomes surrounded by used needles, or has a terrible school district. The homeowner reaps the financial benefit from these services, so they should expect to pay a share.

Thanks for your reply. I think this statement is a good example of how I think your reply misses the point and so I’m not sure we will come to any agreement. Thanks.

You've yet to explain why the people living there have more of a claim to the land than anyone else in society. The model you've proposed is basically "first come first serve" (ie. homesteading principle). Except even that doesn't apply given that some of the land currently in private ownership was previously used by others, who were forced off it, via colonization in North America, and the enclosure acts in Europe. Should we return the land to the descendants of the Native Americans?

Given that land is a scarce good, and access to good land gives substantial benefits to those with access, "first come first serve" simply isn't a workable way to allocate land. Those with land are able to charge rents to those without, and they can pass this privilege down to their heirs, keeping this inequality going.

> Its not at all clear that property owners benefit disproportionately from social services, and they also pay for those services through taxes.

Here's a simple example. Suppose the government decides to build a new transit line going to the edge of the city. The rents and property values along the line will increase. And in most places, income and sales taxes fund at least part of the cost. So renters will pay some of the cost, but get no financial benefit, while also paying increased rents. On the other hand, the landowners will pay some of the cost, but they'll also profit from the increased rents and land values. Essentially, renters pay "twice" for government services: once for the actual service, and then again when the existence of the service leads to higher rents, which are then reaped by landowners.

> I think most of this recent fascination with Georgism is a result of California tax policy and doesn’t withstand a cursory economic analysis.

Basically every economist agrees with the principles behind Georgism, starting from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and continuing to modern economists like Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, so I don't really know what you're talking about here.

You should read about the Law of Rent by Ricardo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent), which basically states what I have said here: land rent is equal to the marginal economic advantage, which is obviously not created by the landowner.

Generally one would ask that the people proposing a change to circumstances assume the burden of proof; it should be obvious why I can’t remove the food from your kitchen and expect you to justify why I should stop.

If you want a more formal argument then its turtles all the way down, I can approach your preferred landowners on the day post-acquisition and use the same procedure to expropriate them, someone else can do the same to me on the next day, ad infinitum.

> The model you've proposed is basically "first come first serve" (ie. homesteading principle). Except even that doesn't apply given that some of the land currently in private ownership was previously used by others, who were forced off it, via colonization in North America, and the enclosure acts in Europe. Should we return the land to the descendants of the Native Americans?

You are aware that many people argue that we should do exactly that, correct? I’m not aware of many people who argue to the contrary, and I’m not sure there is any use in reciting their arguments here.

The expropriation of the Natives is almost universally regarded as a moral wrong in polite society. its fine for you to disagree but I’m at a loss as to why you would assume that I disagree.

> Given that land is a scarce good, and access to good land gives substantial benefits to those with access, "first come first serve" simply isn't a workable way to allocate land.

This is a non sequitur as you’ve failed to explain why one person’s good deal is unworkable for another.

> Those with land are able to charge rents to those without, and they can pass this privilege down to their heirs, keeping this inequality going.

It seems that you’re assuming that inequality is a bad thing. I think inequality is a fact, and the moral implications must be argued for rather than assumed.

> Suppose the government decides to build a new transit line going to the edge of the city. The rents and property values along the line will increase. And in most places, income and sales taxes fund at least part of the cost. So renters will pay some of the cost, but get no financial benefit,

Why aren’t the renters gaining financial benefit from improvements to mass transit in their area? It seems that you’re arguing against the government being able to fund boondoggles from taxes.

> On the other hand, the landowners will pay some of the cost, but they'll also profit from the increased rents and land values. Essentially, renters pay "twice" for government services: once for the actual service, and then again when the existence of the service leads to higher rents, which are then reaped by landowners.

I feel as though you’ve neglected to consider that the renters benefit from mass transit and therefore there’s no reason for them not to be expected to pay for it; and the fact that public infrastructure results in higher land values is covered under the property tax that we already have established. This whole thing could be bypassed by arguing that these types of improvements should be paid by property taxes (excluding sales taxes etc.).

> Basically every economist agrees with the principles behind Georgism, starting from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and continuing to modern economists like Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, so I don't really know what you're talking about here.

Yeah if you think this is a reasonable statement of the economic consensus vis a vis Georgism I doubt we can learn much from discussion with each other, nice talking and have a good day. Thanks for the Ricardo link.

> This whole thing could be bypassed by arguing that these types of improvements should be paid by property taxes

This is pretty much the core policy that Georgism advocates for: "Henry George is best known for popularizing the argument that government should be funded by a tax on land rent rather than taxes on labor". The rest is just a way to provide economic/justice based reasons for this policy.