3 ms·

> The dual of owning a home is the ability to deny others access to housing. How do you figure? Are we out of land? I would argue we are not, at all.

by dgfitz 2y ago

James_K 2y ago
What is owning a home? It is having the power to legally demand other people leave it. Hence owning a home requires the ability to rent out a home, and to to rent out many homes and drive up the price. Likewise we have much land, but it has not been developed because people own it. In a system of government ownership, they would eventually be outbid on the lease for their land and it would be developed into a larger amount of affordable and higher density housing. Instead people own that land and are able to keep it underdeveloped at the cost to everyone else, then use this leverage to enrich themselves through the increase in house prices. There is no positive argument for the private ownership of land over public ownership.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  > What is owning a home? It is having the power to legally demand other people leave it. A home is where people feel safe and secure with their family, or by themselves. I reject the premise of your re-definition of owning a home.
  - James_K 2y ago
    Well as nice as the sentimental definition you gave is, the legal definition of home ownership revolves around a set of rights granted to you by the government over a plot of land. I could feel safe and secure with my family a t Pizza Hut, but I don't own Pizza Hut.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      The legal definition of marriage is also morose. I don’t intend to observe the goalposts you tried to move.
- donavanm 2y ago
  Just say “ownership is theft” if thats what your argument reduces to. That said, I think the concepts around georgism and dynamic value based taxes are a bit more interesting and address the “land banking” concerns you inserted.
  - James_K 2y ago
    > dynamic value based taxes I hate having to explain this to people, but a tax based on the value of something is called rent. Georgism is a system where the government owns all land and leases it out, but then the call the rent a "tax" to make it more palatable to people who are afraid of public ownership.
    - donavanm 2y ago
      Thats a pretty reductive world view. I suppose “the monopoly of force and law implies control, and quote-unquote ownership, by the state.”? So, mission accomplished? The state already compels me to pay annual taxes based on the value of my titled real estate, my car, my income, my foreign assets, etc… I guess Im just renting it all from the state? Mind you Im no John Birch-man here. I actually pay 42% of my income in taxes, and think real property _should_ be taxed more effectively here in AU. But jumping all the way to “ownership is theft, and taxes are double secret ownership” doesnt seem particularly useful.
      - James_K 2y ago
        > Ownership is theft You are trying so desperately to put those words in my mouth, but I will not say them as I don't know what they mean. > taxes are double secret ownership I'm not making an ideological point here, simply pointing out that the proposed systems are isomorphic in their objectives and execution. They both aim to increase the productive use of land by charging a periodic fee to the occupants of said land based on the market value of the land. There are two differences: the first is one of language (rent vs. tax), and the second on how the rate of this fee is determined. Under socialised land, the market price of land is the same as the fee charged. Under Georgism, the fee is charged by a bunch of politicians looking at the market price of land and trying to figure it out based on that. Given that the two systems are essentially identical, but the second brings in undue political meddling, I see no reason to prefer it to the first solution outside of the practical situation that many people are afraid of public ownership and therefore would be more likely to vote for the worse option. Do you have any real argument for Georgism over public ownership?
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  > It is having the power to legally demand other people leave it Renting gives you that power too

> The dual of owning a home is the ability to deny others access to housing. How do you figure? Are we out of land? I would argue we are not, at all.

by dgfitz 2y ago

> The dual of owning a home is the ability to deny others access to housing. How do you figure? Are we out of land? I would argue we are not, at all.

James_K 2y ago

What is owning a home? It is having the power to legally demand other people leave it. Hence owning a home requires the ability to rent out a home, and to to rent out many homes and drive up the price. Likewise we have much land, but it has not been developed because people own it. In a system of government ownership, they would eventually be outbid on the lease for their land and it would be developed into a larger amount of affordable and higher density housing. Instead people own that land and are able to keep it underdeveloped at the cost to everyone else, then use this leverage to enrich themselves through the increase in house prices. There is no positive argument for the private ownership of land over public ownership.

dgfitz 2y ago
> What is owning a home? It is having the power to legally demand other people leave it. A home is where people feel safe and secure with their family, or by themselves. I reject the premise of your re-definition of owning a home.
- James_K 2y ago
  Well as nice as the sentimental definition you gave is, the legal definition of home ownership revolves around a set of rights granted to you by the government over a plot of land. I could feel safe and secure with my family a t Pizza Hut, but I don't own Pizza Hut.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    The legal definition of marriage is also morose. I don’t intend to observe the goalposts you tried to move.
donavanm 2y ago
Just say “ownership is theft” if thats what your argument reduces to. That said, I think the concepts around georgism and dynamic value based taxes are a bit more interesting and address the “land banking” concerns you inserted.
- James_K 2y ago
  > dynamic value based taxes I hate having to explain this to people, but a tax based on the value of something is called rent. Georgism is a system where the government owns all land and leases it out, but then the call the rent a "tax" to make it more palatable to people who are afraid of public ownership.
  - donavanm 2y ago
    Thats a pretty reductive world view. I suppose “the monopoly of force and law implies control, and quote-unquote ownership, by the state.”? So, mission accomplished? The state already compels me to pay annual taxes based on the value of my titled real estate, my car, my income, my foreign assets, etc… I guess Im just renting it all from the state? Mind you Im no John Birch-man here. I actually pay 42% of my income in taxes, and think real property _should_ be taxed more effectively here in AU. But jumping all the way to “ownership is theft, and taxes are double secret ownership” doesnt seem particularly useful.
    - James_K 2y ago
      > Ownership is theft You are trying so desperately to put those words in my mouth, but I will not say them as I don't know what they mean. > taxes are double secret ownership I'm not making an ideological point here, simply pointing out that the proposed systems are isomorphic in their objectives and execution. They both aim to increase the productive use of land by charging a periodic fee to the occupants of said land based on the market value of the land. There are two differences: the first is one of language (rent vs. tax), and the second on how the rate of this fee is determined. Under socialised land, the market price of land is the same as the fee charged. Under Georgism, the fee is charged by a bunch of politicians looking at the market price of land and trying to figure it out based on that. Given that the two systems are essentially identical, but the second brings in undue political meddling, I see no reason to prefer it to the first solution outside of the practical situation that many people are afraid of public ownership and therefore would be more likely to vote for the worse option. Do you have any real argument for Georgism over public ownership?
IncreasePosts 2y ago
> It is having the power to legally demand other people leave it Renting gives you that power too