I’m confused about the distinction between land and housing, and the assumption of fungibility of land. There’s a whole lot of land that could support denser housing, but the current owners and regulatory agencies prefer to leave it available for other uses (parks, barbecues, nice views, etc.). There’s a lot of land that really is unsuitable for more density (due to terrain or other constraints).
Creating and destroying land is slow enough (though it does happen) that rounding it to “constant” doesn’t bother me. I am suspicious of the analysis in “no impact” on rent, as land prices fall. This requires a belief that if land were cheaper, landowners wouldn’t use more for themselves (private use) rather than creating and renting more usable housing.
That is a bit of a misleading statement. Land is never bought under a Georgist system, it is only rented. The rent is the taxes paid to the governing authority.
I think use of the word “rented” there is a bit misleading.
Some central distinctions between renting property and owning it are that there are lease conditions imposed by the owner, much greater restrictions than ownership on how the property can be improved, and the option for the owner to decline renewal of the lease at their sole discretion. Georgism has none of those.
It’s a land tax, and the only real difference between Georgist land taxes and current ones is the magnitude.
Okay, that is fair, my use of “rented” was sloppy. The land user is paying the economic rent the location commands back to the community/society. That is not the same as your typical lease arrangement.
But clearly no ownership right that allows an owner to decline some offer, not matter how high, to transfer that control of the item exists with land (nature) under a Georgist system. So no one is actually buying, or owning, land in that system as understood under the current private ownership currently in place.
The real difference in the Georist land taxes is the alternative concept of land ownership and process for setting tax rates, not merely the magnitude of the taxes that are levied.
I (largely) agree with the statement made that “buying” land is cheaper and “owning” more expensive. However, it does gloss over the fundamental changes related to property rights in land (nature) at the core of the system.
I’m confused about the distinction between land and housing, and the assumption of fungibility of land. There’s a whole lot of land that could support denser housing, but the current owners and regulatory agencies prefer to leave it available for other uses (parks, barbecues, nice views, etc.). There’s a lot of land that really is unsuitable for more density (due to terrain or other constraints).
Creating and destroying land is slow enough (though it does happen) that rounding it to “constant” doesn’t bother me. I am suspicious of the analysis in “no impact” on rent, as land prices fall. This requires a belief that if land were cheaper, landowners wouldn’t use more for themselves (private use) rather than creating and renting more usable housing.
Why would they do that? They still have to pay the land tax at the same rate; if they don’t rent, they have to pay that out of their own pocket.
Land is cheaper to buy, but more expensive to own.
ah, fair point.
That is a bit of a misleading statement. Land is never bought under a Georgist system, it is only rented. The rent is the taxes paid to the governing authority.
I think use of the word “rented” there is a bit misleading.
Some central distinctions between renting property and owning it are that there are lease conditions imposed by the owner, much greater restrictions than ownership on how the property can be improved, and the option for the owner to decline renewal of the lease at their sole discretion. Georgism has none of those.
It’s a land tax, and the only real difference between Georgist land taxes and current ones is the magnitude.
Okay, that is fair, my use of “rented” was sloppy. The land user is paying the economic rent the location commands back to the community/society. That is not the same as your typical lease arrangement.
But clearly no ownership right that allows an owner to decline some offer, not matter how high, to transfer that control of the item exists with land (nature) under a Georgist system. So no one is actually buying, or owning, land in that system as understood under the current private ownership currently in place.
The real difference in the Georist land taxes is the alternative concept of land ownership and process for setting tax rates, not merely the magnitude of the taxes that are levied.
I (largely) agree with the statement made that “buying” land is cheaper and “owning” more expensive. However, it does gloss over the fundamental changes related to property rights in land (nature) at the core of the system.