Land Value Capture, Explained 

The land value tax exist in spite of, not in light of, Henry George's work. His incredibly outdated theory of profit and wages are utterly unfounded in the empirical literature; the idea that the increasing value of land reduce both profit and wage in equal proportion to the increase cannot be found in any empirical studies, on the contrary, the opposite is typically found (See, for instance, Wages and Accessibility: The Impact of Transport Infrastructure by Matas 2012). So no, this is not a good explanation of "Georgist" wealth tax. Similarly, some of his theoretical speculation isn't found in the science either. The idea that a land value tax may increase gdp on its own, is only found in theoretical mathematic models, while empirical investigations find no such evidence[1]. Typically, the most conclusive evidence in favor of the land value tax is it has no deadweight loss. This is actually good news for its proponents, as it means you can tax land value without losing gdp, gdp likely increasing due to reduction in other taxes or increase in government spending following. But Henry George theorized that a land value tax would increase land accessibility would raise gdp on its own, which isn't founded on an empirical basis. This is indeed something explained theoretically too with very basic supply and demand. That the supply of land is inelastic, means that an increase in the tax of land will proportionally reduce the cost of acquisition. This means that the fall in transaction costs will be equal to the cost born on the new owner from the tax itself. Evidence from the Danish economic advisory (Økonomisk råd) proves that much (dors.dk/files/media/publikationer/arbejdspapirer/2017/02_arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf), but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that's actually read Henry George calling that evidence of his propositions. To conclude, the land value tax (And land value capture mechanisms generally, such as the Hong Kong & Japanese railway models) are efficient and realistic mechanisms to recuperate lost revenues on investments and to raise government funds without distorting economic activity. However, this is a far-cry from the sometimes infantile optimism by Henry George, and even further a far-cry from his theoretical premises he supplied in progress and poverty which is seemingly debunked in the current literature, or at least has little to no concise conclusion for it to be affirmation of his work. Rather, the Land Value Tax is good, not because of his writing, but in spite of it. It therefor makes no sense to call this "georgism." Footnotes: 1. To quote the review of available evidence by Richard F. Dye and Richard W. England (2010): "Very few land value tax studies can satisfy the research standards for selection of outcome measures, sufficiently precise measurement of variables, and controls for nontax influences on building activity to sustain the conclusion that a shift to land value taxation will necessarily result in good economic outcomes. Wherever possible, though, it is desirable that tax policy should do no harm-even if the purported benefit of the tax regime is hard to measure or isolate from other factors." (Page 22) Here, they quote empirical evidence by Oates and Schwab in their 1997 study: "We certainly cannot conclude from the Pittsburgh experience that tax reform in itself is capable of generating major urban renewal efforts. Our findings thus do not support some of the more extravagant claims that land-tax proponents have made for the role of the tax in stimulating economic activity. The contribution of land-value taxation is to be understood not in terms of any direct stimulus to development, for there is likely to be little or none if the tax is basically neutral. Rather, land-value taxation provides city officials with a tax instrument that generates revenues but has no damaging side effects on the urban economy."

Can you elaborate more I want to understand ( how that will work for health insurance or police?)

@@AlAk-bm8dy So, I'm not talking health insurance here - I'm talking things like hospitals. At least where I've lived, proximity to hospitals often raises rent and property value, as it's more attractive to live next to such healthcare facilities - It's a place of security, but also of job prospects, making such location very attractive for homeowners. As for police, crime and property value are inversely correlated - More crime, less value. By having a police force recuperate parts of their operations in the form of value capture, a hypothetical private police force would attempt to maximize services and security to maximize profits from property.

@@nils191 Thanks for the reply 🙏

The community, through the government, has the right to tax land. Moreso than any other type of property: your labor is yours, your accumulated wealth is yours as the previous-output of your labor. But you, nor anyone else, created land.

It doesn't have to be the government necessarily it just needs to be a public treasury that is open and transparent to the community at large. Many ways to do this: community land trusts, credit unions, sovereign wealth funds etc.

In most situations in North America, land use changes are very much "asked for". I agree the government isn't creating any value by simply giving back development rights that would have existed by default in the absence of their regulations under common law. Building a train line is inherently different than reducing development restrictions.

China is found by print money, not by land value tax