For some context, this "new law" the title mentions is a policy proposal by the Opportunity Party, a non-incumbent New Zealand political party participating in the upcoming 2026 general election. It is not a law, because it has neither been passed or is about to be passed.

I'm a geezer Hanker (veteran georgist) who loves kibbitzing G-hankum style, so when in San Francisco, give me a dial and we can lunch after meeting on any of my five george-o walking tours. Visit www(dot)TheCommonsSF.org fo' mo'.

This survey contains a list of taxes practiced around the world. Select all of the taxes you believe should be implemented, or continue to exist in the long term, in your country.

Insofar I've been able to find anything on the internet, 19th century Georgists used blue and red. The single tax posters I've seen from the UK were dominated by red, although yellow is of course the colour associated with the Liberal party. The Danish Retsforbundet, as far as I know still the most successful Georgist party in the world, uses something that's either purple or dark magenta. In the past, they seem to have used dark blue in campaign posters.

I get the impression yellow / green was introduced fairly recently. Perhaps even recently enough to pinpoint the actual year.

A lot of the leftist arguments against "landlords" goes too far for me, such as that there is no value added to renting at all and that it's total extraction from the working class. From the perspective of someone that knows small landlords that do run the business themselves, managing a property is legitimate value added when they care about the property and aren't slumlords. And under Georgism it becomes much more apparent what that value is. Taking away the speculative nature of land as an investment would really benefit people that like doing the property management part.

And there's a real shortsitedness to the current American Dream of single family home ownership, that dense housing and more green space is a far better use of land. Managing the health and well-being of dense housing is a lot of work that would be made more complex if it was managed by the collective people that live there.

This post was inspired by the article "Defining 'Consumption'" by Mason Gaffney, here's an excerpt:

What can it mean to "consume" land, when it does not get used up? It can only mean to occupy or preempt a time-slot of space. That has the most profound implications for the meaning of "consumption" in economic thinking, and "consumer taxation" in fiscal policy. Economists have neglected and papered over these matters almost completely. Let us pursue the point.

How shall we measure land-consumption by owners, where no rent is paid? Is it purely subjective? Does it vary with the owner's mood and health? It is simpler than that, and fully practicable. The measure is the market opportunity cost of land, e.g. the price times the interest rate.

...

So-called consumer taxes actually imposed now and in the past bear heavily on the necessities of median and poor families. We deride the salt tax of the French ancien regime. and of pre-Ghandian India. We recognize them as instruments of tyranny and class warfare, even as we tolerate modern legislators who now impose comparable burdens on ourselves, and economists who rationalize such taxes by belittling the necessities of life.

A similar case could be made for owning/depleting other limited natural resources, like minerals or water (which we can deal with by either auctioning off those rights or putting a severance tax on their extraction).

How could we run society if we abolished economics? Economics is not natural and it is a man made concept, meaning it would not be unnatural to abolish it.

I was socialist georgist, but now I am just a woke Georgist. I want to hold people accountable for their wrongdoings but maintain a georgist system. Georgism sounds very appealing with the way it works and your support has helped me learn more and now I am a Georgist of social justice.