The question that is being answered in this book is why does poverty follow wealth. Many wealthy urban cities, have citizens that are wealthy, but the city also has more people in poverty. The way wealth is divided, going to either interest (capital), wage (labor), and rent (landlord), determines how much poverty there is in the city. Rent is the enemy in this story.
Labor produces wealth by providing useful value to resources. Capital allows labor to be more productive. With capital, each worker has more value. The problem is rent, for rent does not add to wealth. Rent just takes income and profit away from those that provide wealth. Ownership of land means the subjugation of the worker by taking away mean of productions, giving more power to the land owner.
Population amount does not create poverty. With fertile land, a single individual would not be produce much wealth. Where the land does not have much resources, many people can subdivide their time to produce a lot of wealth. With more people, each person can create more wealth.
For every argument that Henry George makes, he points out many counterclaims that others have made. Rather than putting the different theories on the sidelines, they are just as central to the story as what George is trying to explain.
The solution the author proposed was to make all land common. Pointing out that every party will benefit via the ability to produce more wealth. The problem he failed to clarify is who is to make the decision on the land, as in who gets to actually use the land when it is common.
The general case solution is to pay only for improvements and maintenance. Ownership of land should not entitle others to take a share in income while providing nothing in return. ( )

An incredibly well-written book. Although I disagree with the author's conclusions, and Marx himself found them laughable, Henry George is a fantastic writer and his arguments against Malthus are an important read. ( )

Highly ambitious and inventive for its time and, perhaps, even for our time. Merits consideration by anyone who cares about income inequality and land monopoly. I don't quite buy that a land value tax will cure as many ills as George does, but there is no questioning the ethical foundation. ( )

Interesting ideas. Sometimes pompous-sounding exposition. Summary: Rent = income from the use of land; comes at the expense of wages but is not itself productive. Community concentration of labour makes rents increase, which reduces wages ultimately to rock-bottom slavery levels. Therefore tax rent to a large degree to give money back to the community; reduce all other taxes and watch productivity and wages soar, poverty and land speculation end, good government return, civilisation wax instead of wane.

George's ideas have relevance today and have never been fully implemented. Income taxes are only a century old but we regard them as the bedrock of taxation. What if there were another way? Henry George believed that private monopoly ownership of land is an evil which causes poverty and inequality, and ultimately the downfall of civilisation. ( )

Before our modern day troubles began Henry George looked at the poor to see why they were poor, why industrialization kept them down, why trickle down economics would never work. Coining the phrase "Conspicuous Consumption" as the fire for industrialization and the death nell for democracy. A must read. After you read this Read Naomi Kleins Shock Doctrine or vice versa ( )