3 ms·

> providing no service Being a landlord does provide a service, the service of managing the land and property. I don't want to buy a house right now because I'

> providing no service Being a landlord does provide a service, the service of managing the land and property. I don't want to buy a house right now because I'm not ready yet, so I _want_ landlords to provide properties so that I can have a home without having to go through the process of buying one just to sell it a year or so later.

larsiusprime 5y ago
We can still do that under a land value tax system. Property managers are good; the argument being made here is that a "house" is really two assets: the land, and the capital of the building itself. The latter is a depreciating asset, the former doesn't behave like capital at all, because, among other reasons, it can't be produced. Property managers receive a return on their labor (services to their tenants) and their investments of capital (maintenance and improvements to the building). Conventional landlords are a mixture of property managers and "pure" landlords. A "pure" landlord makes money only off of gatekeeping access to the land. The fact that it is entirely possible for a landlord to outsource property management to a 3rd party and still have a profitable venture is a telling sign. In a land value tax system, you would only be able to profit from property management, not from "pure" landlordism of holding a scarce asset nobody can make and waiting for it to go up in value or collecting rent to let people access it. I was interviewed by Jerusalem in the piece and have written an in-depth series with many citations from the empirical literature about this subject: www.gameofrent.com
- bombcar 5y ago
  I wonder what that would say about banks being "landlords" of money and "renting" it out ... probably something about usury.
orthecreedence 5y ago
> the service of managing the land and property That's being a property manager, not a landlord. Landlords provide no services. One can be a landlord AND a property manager, but the role of landlord is distinguished simply by owning something that others want.

larsiusprime 5y ago

We can still do that under a land value tax system. Property managers are good; the argument being made here is that a "house" is really two assets: the land, and the capital of the building itself. The latter is a depreciating asset, the former doesn't behave like capital at all, because, among other reasons, it can't be produced. Property managers receive a return on their labor (services to their tenants) and their investments of capital (maintenance and improvements to the building). Conventional landlords are a mixture of property managers and "pure" landlords. A "pure" landlord makes money only off of gatekeeping access to the land. The fact that it is entirely possible for a landlord to outsource property management to a 3rd party and still have a profitable venture is a telling sign. In a land value tax system, you would only be able to profit from property management, not from "pure" landlordism of holding a scarce asset nobody can make and waiting for it to go up in value or collecting rent to let people access it. I was interviewed by Jerusalem in the piece and have written an in-depth series with many citations from the empirical literature about this subject: www.gameofrent.com

bombcar 5y ago
I wonder what that would say about banks being "landlords" of money and "renting" it out ... probably something about usury.

orthecreedence 5y ago

> the service of managing the land and property That's being a property manager, not a landlord. Landlords provide no services. One can be a landlord AND a property manager, but the role of landlord is distinguished simply by owning something that others want.