2 ms·

Henry George thought that land was our common inheritance, but was in favor of free markets. He did not support rent control. He thought of rent as a fact owing

by nwah1 8y ago

Henry George thought that land was our common inheritance, but was in favor of free markets. He did not support rent control. He thought of rent as a fact owing to the value of the location, and the question is not how to make the rent lower. The question is who gets to profit off the fruits of nature. Rent control, in effect, converts tenants into pseudo-landowners with less fungible rights. If locations are valuable, and by extension the rents, that is good. But to whom does the rent belong? If rents are unaffordable, it is because wages are too low and the rent is not shared... which comes back to bargaining power and the overall health of the economy. Taxing production, for instance, harms economic health. But allowing speculators to hold the land for ransom creates stagnation, sprawl, and harms the bargaining power of labor... by worsening everyone's best available options for living and working.

geezerjay 8y ago
> But allowing speculators to hold the land for ransom Property owners paid all the development costs, directly and indirectly,as well as all the maintenance and bureaucratic work. If you rent an appartment, you're not paying for a percentage of the lot. You're paying for the fraction of a whole system (structural, electrical, sanitary, etc) which exists only because those who invested their hard-earned cash puting everything together. More importantly, that little lot is only worth something because other investors spent their hard-earned cash investing in that area, either in urban development projects or in commercial and/or industrial activities. So quite obviously that sort of exploitation angle makes no sense as it is based on a very weak strawman (i.e., there is only value in occupying a specific region in space) that had no bearing in reality. Let's put it this way: what would happen to San Francisco's housing costs if magically the entire tech industry raised their figuratice anchor and moved elsewhere?
- nwah1 8y ago
  The idea of Land Value Taxation, which was George's proposal, is that improvements are to be exempted from taxation, and the effort of property management is to be considered as authentic labor. Only land is to be taxed. Not capital. Not labor.

by nwah1 8y ago

geezerjay 8y ago

> But allowing speculators to hold the land for ransom Property owners paid all the development costs, directly and indirectly,as well as all the maintenance and bureaucratic work. If you rent an appartment, you're not paying for a percentage of the lot. You're paying for the fraction of a whole system (structural, electrical, sanitary, etc) which exists only because those who invested their hard-earned cash puting everything together. More importantly, that little lot is only worth something because other investors spent their hard-earned cash investing in that area, either in urban development projects or in commercial and/or industrial activities. So quite obviously that sort of exploitation angle makes no sense as it is based on a very weak strawman (i.e., there is only value in occupying a specific region in space) that had no bearing in reality. Let's put it this way: what would happen to San Francisco's housing costs if magically the entire tech industry raised their figuratice anchor and moved elsewhere?

nwah1 8y ago
The idea of Land Value Taxation, which was George's proposal, is that improvements are to be exempted from taxation, and the effort of property management is to be considered as authentic labor. Only land is to be taxed. Not capital. Not labor.