3 ms·
I strongly oppose the existence of such an entity that has absolute control over land, especially if it’s a government. If you want affordability, land value t
by kory 5y ago
I strongly oppose the existence of such an entity that has absolute control over land, especially if it’s a government.
If you want affordability, land value tax will incentivize appropriate development.
If you want to steal/take control over land arbitrarily from its users, land rent is a good choice.
In my opinion, if someone owns land and can afford the tax, leave them be. Let them keep their land rather giving it to an entity that supposedly knows better what to do with the land than the occupant.
- novok 5y agoAll gov't has control over land via eminent domain, property taxation and regulation to the point of making land useless and the ability to seize your assets, which includes land. If you say 'well I control the gov't via democracy'! Well you would control that same 99 yo gov't lease holder too about just as much.
- tommiegannert 5y ago> I strongly oppose the existence of such an entity that has absolute control over land > > In my opinion, if someone owns land and can afford the tax, leave them be. The government is the thing that allows the concept of land ownership. Anyone trying to take ownership will have to go through courts with legislature written by that government. Even if they gunned their way into occupation, getting a court order to have the (often better-armed) police turn it back would be possible. I see no way around having a central coordinating body drawing up guidelines to define ownership. The ground is a finite resource I don't think anyone should be able to hoard and occupy indefinitely. That coupled with me not liking wealth inequality leads me to think that the Singapore (and others) way of leases might be good in the long run.