2 ms·

> The land belongs to society, land ownership is immoral, all land should be rented out by the government at market rates through a land value tax. I'm pretty

> The land belongs to society, land ownership is immoral, all land should be rented out by the government at market rates through a land value tax. I'm pretty uninformed on this subject, so pardon my ignorance with this question, but what's the "morality" difference between renting land and owning it? Because in the US, even when you nominally "own" land, you still have to pay taxes on it, otherwise it can get seized by the government. And even when you do pay your taxes, the government can always seize it and reimburse you through eminent domain. It seems pretty similar to renting to me, except by a different name. How is that so dramatically different from renting where one is moral and the other immoral?

HDThoreaun 3y ago
So 2 things here. First, whether people currently "own" land due to property taxes. Sure there's an argument there but imo it's mostly semantics. The main point is that the vast majority of land rents go to the "owner" because the property taxes are a low percentage of the lands value. As far as why private land ownership is immoral I think it's quite obvious when you think about why we have property rights. Other than the security aspects which are retained with land value tax the main purpose is to encourage people to create things, without property rights there's less incentive to engage in the economy. Through that lens private ownership of land is absurd. Land is not created, the idea that someone can become entitled to its rents is counterintuitive to the entire point of property ownership. The profits from an asset that wasn't created by anyone should go to everyone. We can go in less philosophical directions too, land value tax has zero deadweight loss and heavily penalizes speculation. LVT encourages efficient land use which raises our GDP and is likely to help everyone in the economy as land is a very decentralized asset.
francisofascii 3y ago
Property taxes are too low. The amount is often based on the structure, rather than the land, which is the opposite of how it should be.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

So 2 things here. First, whether people currently "own" land due to property taxes. Sure there's an argument there but imo it's mostly semantics. The main point is that the vast majority of land rents go to the "owner" because the property taxes are a low percentage of the lands value. As far as why private land ownership is immoral I think it's quite obvious when you think about why we have property rights. Other than the security aspects which are retained with land value tax the main purpose is to encourage people to create things, without property rights there's less incentive to engage in the economy. Through that lens private ownership of land is absurd. Land is not created, the idea that someone can become entitled to its rents is counterintuitive to the entire point of property ownership. The profits from an asset that wasn't created by anyone should go to everyone. We can go in less philosophical directions too, land value tax has zero deadweight loss and heavily penalizes speculation. LVT encourages efficient land use which raises our GDP and is likely to help everyone in the economy as land is a very decentralized asset.

francisofascii 3y ago

Property taxes are too low. The amount is often based on the structure, rather than the land, which is the opposite of how it should be.