follow Patrick following
follow Patrick 2018 Apr 16, 9:31am
8,156 views 86 comments
Landlord of the year. Lol! Rofbhawuild! (Rolling on the floor, banging my head against the wall until I lose my deposit.) Who is it going to be? One who lets you have a pet? Some of my friends are landlords, and I’m sorry to say it, but they are going straight to hell too. Imagine how satisfyingly overcrowded the underworld must be with landlords; partitioning the seventh circle into seven more circles, charging each other extra for underfloor heating. The best thing you can say about them is that they are better than letting agents. But that’s like giving Stalin a humanitarian award for massacring fewer people than Genghis Khan. The fact is, they’re all rogue. Whether your landlord is a genial profiteer or an actual psychopath is the luck of the draw. Anyone can be one, if they have made enough money or inherited property, and those are two of the worst qualifications imaginable. Like anyone who thrives off the housing crisis, they are social parasites.
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 86 of 86 Last »
non-productive rent-seeking helps no one but the parasite, and harms whole countries. It is an evil we should eliminate.
Empty lots generate tons of income for their parasitical owners simply by increasing in value due to the work of others near the land.
To be fair, the construction and maintenance of a building is productive work, so rent on a building should not be taxed at all.But rent from mere non-productive ownership of land should be taxed at 100%. Owning land benefits no one and produces nothing.
Are car rental places social parasites as well? Are hotels social parasites?
Philosophically, no human can own land, because the first piece of land ever to be sold was stolen property. It was never paid for.
Ah the missing numbers have arrived, now I see how you can make an economic case based on such solid research. Like how much of the US economy is the profits on land sales and how it harms the whole country. But hey it's true, it's true.
We don't count the money we weren't reimbursed, therefore we have no numerical data, therefore medical costs of illegals are no problem because there is no data on what we don't track.
I damn sure count my money. How about you sell me your house and I'll give you a envelope full of money that I guess is the right amount and you won't count. You can call yourself reimbursed. Let me know when. Have faith.
There are plenty of numbers. Just because you don't want to accept them doesn't mean they aren't there. If you think the numbers are wrong present the correct numbers with something a little more substantial than I guess. I'll be waiting, and waiting, and waiting.
If land is non-productive, it would be useless and there would be no rent collected on it.
The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.
The key is that we have the power to tax non-productive rent-seeking at a much higher rate than the rate on productive work.
We've been over this several times, the hospital study admitted it did not track non-reimbursed expenses. It could be $10 or $10B. We have no idea, because they didn't account. You assume it's near 0. I suspect it's in the billions.
Patrick saysThe key is that we have the power to tax non-productive rent-seeking at a much higher rate than the rate on productive work.I'm gonna disagree, and use your methodology for better house buying experience against you. More information about which landlords are good, and which are scummy is what's needed. Government never fixes anything. They will certainly promise to, but end result will be more money for them, and same problems for you.Need better ways to identify, and make widely known which landlords are scummy, free market will take care of the rest.
It's not fundamentally different than buying a machine that produces toothbrushes, and then operating the machine and selling toothbrushes.
Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries.
According to Marx, Communism is the elimination of private property. "Private Property" specifically includes land.
But land was not produced by anyone's labor. No one should be paid for simply extracting land-rent from the public.
Georgism would simply tax land very highly, and not tax labor or commerce at all
* We can eliminate the entire income tax and sales tax bureaucracy.
How would land be taxed if it's owned by the government like hong kong and singapore?
That would make mid west farmers with thousands of acres really happy. Back out all the government owned public land the number goes up to $5615 per acre. That would really be a help to family farms.
Why aren't they as wealthy as Honk Kong if georgism is the key to prosperity?
It notice that the GDP per capita isn't adjusted by PPP.
Zurich is incredibly expensive for a huge range of goods and services. Hong Kong is world famous for cheap eats, shopping, services, etc.
Obvious straw man. No one is suggesting that all land be taxed equally. It should be proportional to the value. But yes, another way we will pay the land vaule tax is via food, which we already do now to some degree.
PPP is the most bogus metric there is. By the time all the data is gathered it's useless.. There is a good reason anyone dealing in money uses Market Exchange and anyone dealing in the academic ivory tower world (ngo's, policy wonks, foundations, etc.) uses PPP. The big mac index is probably just as good if not better..
And raw GDP is also useless because of cost of living differences between developed countries. Yes, it's useful for figuring out Swaziland isn't Sweden, but not the relative advantages of living in either Sweden or Switzerland.
The problem cannot be resolved until parasites' assets are confiscated, they are stripped of passport and citizenship and deported on a red eye flight to nicaragua.
Here's a bit more about the land value tax (LVT) in Hong Kong and Singapore:The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05
Also, Hong Kong government had a long history of auctioning government land to the highest bidder
Landlords who build or maintain buildings are providing a service to the public. I don't think that's scummy at all. It's valuable work.My point is only that merely owning land is not a service to anyone.
There will be no land value tax.
I know mine is (a parasite).Raised our rent $200 (14% increase, Las Vegas) after 2 1/2 years of on time payments with no calls for anything.
Reason given by PM - rents are really going up, with a tone of amazement, slight glee.
Place is not premium, by any stretch of the imagination. With a large desert scrub backyard and two pets, I might as well live outdoors with all the dirt dragged in. .
SFace saysThere will be no land value tax.@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.
LVT does not work. In places you think it works, property prices is at puke level.
Note that salaries in Hong Kong and Singapore are also off the charts.
But the economy is much better for everyone (except big landowners) under a land value tax. The tax is non-destructive of work and commerce.
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 86 of 86 Last »