>No, the upside from infrastructure projects is largely not captured by the public nor the state.
Are you claiming that infrastructures are a loss to the public and state?
If there isnt enough public upside to justify the project, then the public should not take it on. IF there is enough upside, then spillover is acceptable and much of it will be captured in taxes anyways.
You didnt say foisting the cost, but you did suggest seizing private property to reduce the taxpayer expense and prevent owners from benefiting.
Im quite similar with Georgism, and think it is economically outdated in a service economy. Beyond that, it is only appealing if you oppose property ownership and think the purpose of the state is to optimize allocation of resources for tax farming.
Unfortunately not, as it is primarily my conclusion based reading about it and engaging with proponents. Maybe I should write a blog post or something.
In short, I think it is outdated because it is a material consumption and utilization tax applied relatively regressively.
Henry George lived in the 1800s when economic value creation primarily was primarily through agricultural and industrial utilization of natural resources (farming, mining, manufacturing). Since then, the value creation in industrialized countries have largely shifted to service and knowledge economies (finance, medicine, entertainment, technology, arbitrage, and IP). Service and knowledge economies are much more detached from natural resources consumption. As and example, a banker might make a million dollar trade consuming little more than the electricity and a PC, whereas a farmer needs hundreds of acres, Water, tractors, fuel, and fertilizer.
One might think that the tax burden would get passed along from the primary users of natural recourses to the end consumers, and this is may be true to a degree. However, differences in consumption is much more flat between individuals than income or wealth. Your Warren Buffets of the world might have an income 100,000 X higher than the average person, but they dont consume 100,000X more material goods like food, water, housing, ect.
Are you claiming that infrastructures are a loss to the public and state? If there isnt enough public upside to justify the project, then the public should not take it on. IF there is enough upside, then spillover is acceptable and much of it will be captured in taxes anyways.
You didnt say foisting the cost, but you did suggest seizing private property to reduce the taxpayer expense and prevent owners from benefiting.
Im quite similar with Georgism, and think it is economically outdated in a service economy. Beyond that, it is only appealing if you oppose property ownership and think the purpose of the state is to optimize allocation of resources for tax farming.