There is no optimal form of taxation, only trade-offs.

There is shifting burdens from good to good or person to person.

I find it no surprise that so many of the loudest proponents for georgism are highly compensated tech workers with low physical consumption - exactly the demographic that would be favored most under that system.

▲

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent [-]

We tend to own property in places where land is expensive, we'd be paying hefty taxes in a Georgist system.

	▲	reverius42 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It would also help incentivize real improved use of expensive property, and less speculative investment without improvement, perhaps leading to lower prices (thus lower land value, and lower taxes), perhaps reaching some kind of equilibrium with better improved land use in expensive areas, less speculation resulting in the expensive areas being less expensive, and more equitable taxation than our current system.
	▲	s1artibartfast 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I would expect tht land usage favors the very rich, but not nearly as much as income. Georgism does a excellent job of incentivising better land use, but is trivial to shelter income from. A teacher renting a run down aprtment might have a similar land tax footprint to a tech ceo in a taller building, or maybe the ceo just works from home in Wyoming. xAI whomever puts their next Mega server farm on undesirable land, and then operates basically tax-free. The end of day problem with the theory is that we now live in a knowledge and information economy, not an industrial one governed by material inputs. Changing a 1 to a 0 on a string of bits might yeild a billion dollar profit, but requires no material overhead.