I'm fine with the land going up in value. I'm not fine with the property owner collecting all of the benefit despite doing no labor.Because other skyscrapers want to be built on that patch of dirt and many developers are willing to pay you a premium to be close to that other skyscraper.
Let's keep in mind that value is relative, these are not objective intrinsic attributes of land here. To discuss how land is valued is to discuss not the value of land, but human behavior.
I'm not a Communist. I don't want a society of only physical laborers. As I've said repeatedly, there's are other options besides communism and capitalism.Doesn't answer the question. But does beg a couple more.
Who in your world hires and pays your nation of all laborers?
Who attends to the distribution of the product of your nation of laborers?
Who develops the new innovations and assumes the risk and reward in your nation of laborers?
That's the beauty of the market system. The questions become self answering. If 1 million laborers need housing, 10,000 landlords will step in and provide it using labor who then get a pay check.
Food gets moved where it's needed. California to NYC, by an entrepreneur in Chicago who makes a buck in the process. Truck drivers get paid.
Are you saying that China hasn't been successful? They're still very much centrally land despite liberalizing much of the economy.You asked "why". A "why" doesn't need an argument for a replay, just the answer. I gave you the answer to "why". Here's the next:
Because it works better than all the other things we've tried.
Amazing how you decide what I believe and then criticize it even though I never stated that was my belief.And, in the converse, if a smelly pig farm or garbage dump is built adjacent to the property, are you against the owner taking a loss? You're against the owner profiting from the increased value, but you have no problem with them taking a loss. Interesting.
So in your world, there should be no upside to speculative investing in real estate, but there should be a huge downside. Interesting.
When we buy a car, the value immediately drops once we drive it. It continues to lose value over time. The same is true of computers. The same is true of just about all consumer goods that wear out. The only things that don't lose value are the things that don't degrade, like precious metals. So what is the deal with housing? Why has the cost of housing gone up faster than inflation? Houses degrade with time. A home built 30 years ago, without maintenance, is far less valuable than a home built brand new, so what's the deal?
The issue is land. Land becomes more scarce over time and thus increases in value. As it goes up, the owner now controls more wealth despite doing absolutely nothing to increase the wealth of society. What was worth $50,000 years ago can be worth $500,000 now simply because the land has become more valuable. Continued unimpeded, this leads to the problem we have today, where young people are delaying family formation and are spending more on housing costs than previous generations. This is terrible for society, as our young people remain mired in debt and land owners reap all of the benefits. It's not a good thing that a home costs about 10 years of income whereas in the past it was less than 7 years of income. How do we fix this?
My argument is the following:
1. Increase property taxes greatly on non-primary residences.
2. Eliminate property taxes entirely on primary residences.
3. Eliminate exemptions such as depreciation and maintenance that are currently used as subsidies for landlords.
4. Tax rental income above the rates of normal income.
This way, we establish real property ownership as a good thing. We favor family home ownership in the desire that all families will be able to live on property that they own. We also discourage speculation on land and viewing land as a means of production and generator of wealth. It is neither of these things, and experience has shown that this process, if continued unabated, will lead to only fewer and fewer people owning land and owning most of a country's wealth.
This proposal is entirely reasonable, fair to home owners, and punitive only to those who are getting wealthy through no work of their own. It will lead to a more prosperous, fairer society where people can mature, grow old, and do the real important work in life, which is to start their families and settle down.
It seems to have no upper limit when it comes to necessities that are capital intensive.The free market does well in a number of places except for healthcare and real estate
Again, I get it. I just fail to see why people should be getting rich for doing no work. If a freeway is built near my home and the property value goes up, so should collect that benefit? Me, or society?
Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
It's an approach, one that I don't agree with entirely because I think people should be able to truly own their land, but at least it doesn't neglect the problem as most everyone in this thread has been propagandized to do.One solution though no one will accept as long as we have Republicans is State ownership of land and leasing according to ability to pay where the lease holder would own the structure and a permanent right to lease the land it would pay only according to Ability to pay. If the lease holder and structure owner sells the structure the new lease would be negotiated with the government according to the new leaseholders ability to pay.
The reason I support this idea is because land cannot be manufactured as other products can to keep prices down --one can manufacture things to meet the demand. this is impossible with land and therefore should be taken out of the free-market entirely
Amazing how you decide what I believe and then criticize it even though I never stated that was my belief.
Yep, he things you just buy a property, move to Hawaii and watch the money roll in. It's as if his ideal condition is every one just doing manual labor day in and day out and then their children doing the same thing.He forgets about upkeep and everything else that goes into owning property.
Are you serious? Most inheritors continue to operate the family business.His ownership of shares of a company does nothing to keep the business running. He could die and nothing would change with the company.
Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
LOL, maybe not, but everyone needs one.Machinery, factories, etc. Invest in the means of production, things that increase wealth creation. A home is not a means of production.
Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
This makes no sense.Then he has that money to live off of. Money alone does not create wealth. If it did, we could just print enough to make everyone a millionaire and send scarcity.
Money is not a means of production.
Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
I'm not a Communist. I don't want a society of only physical laborers. As I've said repeatedly, there's are other options besides communism and capitalism.
Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
No, I specifically mentioned maintenance. However, you can do all the maintenance in the world on a car. It's still going to be worth less than a new one.
Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Laborers have to be paid, there's a whole industry complete with unions enforcing that fact.I'm fine with the land going up in value. I'm not fine with the property owner collecting all of the benefits despite doing no labor.
I not criticizing. I think it would be great if more people had money and owned homes; but, as a person who travels and needs multiple homes this obviously would just be more a challenge to solve rather than end to being a landlord; much like when I got hit with a x3 out of state tax.When we buy a car, the value immediately drops once we drive it. It continues to lose value over time. The same is true of computers. The same is true of just about all consumer goods that wear out. The only things that don't lose value are the things that don't degrade, like precious metals. So what is the deal with housing? Why has the cost of housing gone up faster than inflation? Houses degrade with time. A home built 30 years ago, without maintenance, is far less valuable than a home built brand new, so what's the deal?
The issue is land. Land becomes more scarce over time and thus increases in value. As it goes up, the owner now controls more wealth despite doing absolutely nothing to increase the wealth of society. What was worth $50,000 years ago can be worth $500,000 now simply because the land has become more valuable. Continued unimpeded, this leads to the problem we have today, where young people are delaying family formation and are spending more on housing costs than previous generations. This is terrible for society, as our young people remain mired in debt and land owners reap all of the benefits. It's not a good thing that a home costs about 10 years of income whereas in the past it was less than 7 years of income. How do we fix this?
My argument is the following:
1. Increase property taxes greatly on non-primary residences.
2. Eliminate property taxes entirely on primary residences.
3. Eliminate exemptions such as depreciation and maintenance that are currently used as subsidies for landlords.
4. Tax rental income above the rates of normal income.
This way, we establish real property ownership as a good thing. We favor family home ownership in the desire that all families will be able to live on property that they own. We also discourage speculation on land and viewing land as a means of production and generator of wealth. It is neither of these things, and experience has shown that this process, if continued unabated, will lead to only fewer and fewer people owning land and owning most of a country's wealth.
This proposal is entirely reasonable, fair to home owners, and punitive only to those who are getting wealthy through no work of their own. It will lead to a more prosperous, fairer society where people can mature, grow old, and do the real important work in life, which is to start their families and settle down.
OK, I'll ask you directly: If the property value goes down, as in the scenario I described, are you against the owner taking a loss?
Yep, he things you just buy a property, move to Hawaii and watch the money roll in.
It's as if his ideal condition is every one just doing manual labor day in and day out and then their children doing the same thing.
Are you serious? Most inheritors continue to operate the family business.
LOL, maybe not, but everyone needs one.
This makes no sense.
I never said you were a communist. But you never answered any question.
I'd be curious as to what those other options would be.
There are always new cars. There is a finite amount of land.
I assume you are not a land owner, but if you are, are you going to sell it for what you bought it for?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?