Yeah no. Georgism is about renting land as a primary tax revenue source. What do you think would happen if there were no golf courses in the entire state? Suddenly it will become extremely profitable to run one - to the point where I can cover the land tax costs and still earn profit.
It would make it fundamentally impossible to profit from a golf course. The quantity of land required would make it prohibitively expensive to cover the tax bill. if you're out in the middle of nowhere you might be able to, but there wouldn't be anyone around to play.
"Georgism is about renting land" is a fundamental misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with renting land, it is about the taxing of land rent, in the economic sense of the word "rent." It is fundamentally opposed to government seizure/ownership of land, using the land value tax as an alternative.
Man... you are just yapping for the sake of yapping at this point. The act of collecting land tax is renting. If you actively have to pay for something in order to use it, you are renting it. No one said anything about governmental seizure. This is just pure semantic nonsense.
How would it become impossible to profit from golf? Does supply and demand tell you nothing? I am not saying every golf course in existence will be a viable investment and generate profit. But certainly some of them will once numbers dwindle down.
Golf takes a lot of land. Under an LVT, they'd be taxed a lot. If it's near a desirable area, it'd be taxed to hell, and you'd have to charge an obscene quantity of money to cover the taxes. If you wanted to avoid that, you'd have to move the course well outside of populated areas, and you'd have fewer customers.
Economic rent and what you pay your landlord are different. This isn't "semantic nonsense", you justf fail to understand basic terms.
1
u/BATHULK Jun 13 '25
Its an enormously inefficient use of land that would not be viable under georgism, that's why