3 ms·

This is obvious? This seems like a terrible solution. Lease durations are important here; if you're like England and have 99 year leases instead of freeholds o

This is obvious? This seems like a terrible solution. Lease durations are important here; if you're like England and have 99 year leases instead of freeholds or something, then that's great, it's basically ownership, but you get no unit pricing signal until the next 99 year renewal rolls around. Practically speaking, from a Georgist perspective, ths isn't even useful because it doesn't convey anything about the unimproved value. What if you make improvements to the land, like build a house or something? Do you have to knock it down when you leave? Is the government the only entity that can build houses? What do you do when Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you and outbids you on every parcel you try to get a lease on?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Poison the land to reduce your tax basis.
- James_K 2y ago
  That would be illegal.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Individually unit price signals are indicated as infrequently as once a century. In practice the individual units turn over more frequently, and aggregate price signals are available as other units turn over far more frequently. On turnover, it's interesting to note that real-estate mobility has fallen markedly in the United States in recent decades. Whereas ~20% of individuals moved in any given year from 1948 through the early 1970s, that figure has fallen to about 7% in the 2020s: <https://paulkedrosky.com/americans-are-less-mobile-than-ever/ https://paulkedrosky.com/americans-are-less-mobile-than-ever...> That translates to a move every 5 years to roughly every 15 years, or three times the residency. Ironically, among the factors contributing to this is being "stuck" by a mortgage, e.g., a house that's under water (more owed than the unit can be sold for), particularly in states without non-recourse ("walkaway") lending laws. This isn't the only factor, but it does contribute. Removing private land ownership might well improve this situation.
James_K 2y ago
> What do you do when Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you and outbids you on every parcel you try to get a lease on? What does he do when he runs out of money for the down payments? Rich people can already price people out of industries in our existing economic system. > then that's great, it's basically ownership The entire point is to get rid of ownership, but there is no need to renew the lease at all. Just increase it based on increases in surrounding leases. Then allow the value to be negotiated down through voluntary renewal. > What if you make improvements to the land, like build a house or something? Do you have to knock it down when you leave? Is the government the only entity that can build houses? You build the house with debt, the debt stays with the land. If you leave, then the person who comes in after you has to pay for the construction of the house.
- some_random 2y ago
  Rich people can price others out of industries, but in this scheme the ONLY seller is the government and sales are mandatory. In your scheme, Elon Musk can outbid you on your lease, there's nothing you can do about it, and you don't even get the proceeds from it.
  - James_K 2y ago
    First of all, this isn't a problem with voluntary renewals as I mentioned earlier in another thread (voluntary renewals is where the price is adjusted based on averages for the local area and only renewed if the owner thinks it's too high, down payments also discourage people from over-zealously renting when renewals happen). Secondly, the entire point of Georgism is that people who are under-performing are priced out of hoarding land. The only situation where it makes sense for Elon Musk to overpay on rent to force someone out of their land is when that person is a competitor of his, and this is illegal under existing anti-trust law. Otherwise, him outbidding owners on the lease is the whole point of the system.
    - some_random 2y ago
      I wish I lived in your world where wealthy people didn't try to ruin the lives of others for petty reasons.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Poison the land to reduce your tax basis.

James_K 2y ago
That would be illegal.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Individually unit price signals are indicated as infrequently as once a century. In practice the individual units turn over more frequently, and aggregate price signals are available as other units turn over far more frequently. On turnover, it's interesting to note that real-estate mobility has fallen markedly in the United States in recent decades. Whereas ~20% of individuals moved in any given year from 1948 through the early 1970s, that figure has fallen to about 7% in the 2020s: <https://paulkedrosky.com/americans-are-less-mobile-than-ever/ https://paulkedrosky.com/americans-are-less-mobile-than-ever...> That translates to a move every 5 years to roughly every 15 years, or three times the residency. Ironically, among the factors contributing to this is being "stuck" by a mortgage, e.g., a house that's under water (more owed than the unit can be sold for), particularly in states without non-recourse ("walkaway") lending laws. This isn't the only factor, but it does contribute. Removing private land ownership might well improve this situation.

James_K 2y ago

> What do you do when Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you and outbids you on every parcel you try to get a lease on? What does he do when he runs out of money for the down payments? Rich people can already price people out of industries in our existing economic system. > then that's great, it's basically ownership The entire point is to get rid of ownership, but there is no need to renew the lease at all. Just increase it based on increases in surrounding leases. Then allow the value to be negotiated down through voluntary renewal. > What if you make improvements to the land, like build a house or something? Do you have to knock it down when you leave? Is the government the only entity that can build houses? You build the house with debt, the debt stays with the land. If you leave, then the person who comes in after you has to pay for the construction of the house.

some_random 2y ago
Rich people can price others out of industries, but in this scheme the ONLY seller is the government and sales are mandatory. In your scheme, Elon Musk can outbid you on your lease, there's nothing you can do about it, and you don't even get the proceeds from it.
- James_K 2y ago
  First of all, this isn't a problem with voluntary renewals as I mentioned earlier in another thread (voluntary renewals is where the price is adjusted based on averages for the local area and only renewed if the owner thinks it's too high, down payments also discourage people from over-zealously renting when renewals happen). Secondly, the entire point of Georgism is that people who are under-performing are priced out of hoarding land. The only situation where it makes sense for Elon Musk to overpay on rent to force someone out of their land is when that person is a competitor of his, and this is illegal under existing anti-trust law. Otherwise, him outbidding owners on the lease is the whole point of the system.
  - some_random 2y ago
    I wish I lived in your world where wealthy people didn't try to ruin the lives of others for petty reasons.