Comments 1 - 40 of 85 Next » Last » Search these comments
Interesting-what would the folks who can't buy do? Move to CA and join the homeless?
rent-seeking involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth-creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline.
Attempts at capture of regulatory agencies to gain a coercive monopoly can result in advantages for the rent seeker in a market while imposing disadvantages on (incorrupt) competitors.
Interesting-what would the folks who can't buy do? Move to CA and join the homeless?
The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is not adding value in any way, directly or indirectly, except for himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free.[5]
In many market-driven economies, much of the competition for rents is legal, regardless of harm it may do to an economy. However, some rent-seeking competition is illegal – such as bribery or corruption.
Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.[6] Profit-seeking in this sense is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is "profiteering" by using social institutions, such as the power of the state, to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth.[7]
Communal apartments (singular: Russian: коммуналка, коммунальная квартира, kommunalka, kommunal'naya kvartira) appeared in Tsarist Russia. The term communal apartments is a product of the Soviet epoch.[1] The concept of communal apartments' grew in Russia and Soviet Union as a response to a housing crisis in urban areas - authorities presented them as a product of the “new collective vision of the future”. Between two and seven families typically shared a communal apartment. Each family had its own room, which often served as a living room, dining room, and bedroom for the entire family. All the residents of the entire apartment shared the use of the hallways, kitchen (commonly known as the "communal kitchen"), bathroom and telephone (if any).[2] The communal apartment became the predominant form of housing in the USSR for generations, and examples still exist in "the most fashionable central districts of large Russian cities".
Lol, I didn't say that renting is necessarily a worse deal than buying for individuals. It's often better to rent, even with a parasitical landlord extracting rent for the land.
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.
Once the public can distinguish between productive work and non-productive rent seeking, we can have a far better economy for everyone (except parasites).
But so far, almost everyone seems blind to the difference between fucking over the public via mere ownership of land, vs providing useful goods and services to the public such as building a building or maintaining it. They are very different activities, yet landlording combines them.
Also describes a tenement, for which families are charged obscene amounts. Plenty of those in pre-War USA.
Or, in modern San Fran.
Nah, these are run by parasitic landlords. The real solution is for benign government to confiscate all the properties from the "parasites" and give them to the "proletariat".
TwoScoopsPlissken saysAlso describes a tenement, for which families are charged obscene amounts. Plenty of those in pre-War USA.
Or, in modern San Fran.
Nah, these are run by parasitic landlords. The real solution is for benign government to confiscate all the properties from the "parasites" and give them to the "proletariat".
If techies are sent to collective farms or re-education camps
The real solution is for benign government to confiscate all the properties from the "parasites" and give them to the "proletariat".
Satoshi_Nakamoto saysThe real solution is for benign government to confiscate all the properties from the "parasites" and give them to the "proletariat".
DIdn't they try that in 1917?
There is a better solution for these STEM parasites:
"Parasitical landlord", "parasitical stockholder", "parasitical savings account owner"..... where does it end?
and once no one is a parasitical landlord where do you plan to live?
As asked many times of the georgians. Where is an example of this utopia found for us to look at to evaluate the pluses and minuses? Such a great system must exist somewhere, except it doesn't. There is probably a reason for that, like it just won't work.
The land is merely a "feature" of the house, just like a hip roof, wide driveway, or 3 car garage.
bob2356 saysSatoshi_Nakamoto saysThe real solution is for benign government to confiscate all the properties from the "parasites" and give them to the "proletariat".
DIdn't they try that in 1917?
Yes they did.
Wholeheartedly agree.
We should be a nation of owners, not renters or debt serfs. Freedom is needed.
How is that parcel supposed to be evaluated?
Land values are quite well known.
The important thing is that the tax must not change if someone builds a building or otherwise does something else productive with the land. The tax should be on the land alone, so as not to discourage productive activity.
Fuck you ALL! Landlords are entitled to suck every last dime from humanity to create dynastic wealth that gives their great great grandkids the FREE!dom to do nothing forever except fuck AMERICA! in the ass every harder every fucking year.
Landlord" conflates owning land with owning the building. They are very different things. Income from the building should not be taxed. Income from the land should be taxed 100%.
Production should not be taxed. Stealing money from productive people's activity is what should be taxed.
There will still be landlords if the rent on the land is taxed 100% and the rent on the building is taxed at 0%.
Such a great system does exist somewhere called Hong Kong. It's not perfectly implemented, but the "ground rent" in Hong Kong is taxed very highly, and income is taxed at a very low rate, and it is a very prosperous economy.
Get it? It's not that hard. Should I try with another example.
There will still be plenty of landlords under Georgism, because rent on the building will not be taxed at all.
Are you a social parasite if you have a capital gain on stock for instance or if you have a lot of savings that earn interest? If someone inherits money without working for it, are they a social parasite?
I’m also curious how you would differentiate between the structure and the land.
how can it be immoral in any way for a negotiated value of the use of the land for a growing operation?
Hong Kong is leasehold. PRC owns all the land. There is no tax on the rent on the land. Why would china tax itself? That makes zero sense.
The profits from mere ownership of land go to the government.
Comments 1 - 40 of 85 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
Once we as a society learn to distinguish between productive work and non-productive rent-seeking, we will be much better off. But it's slow going. People seem remarkably resistant to the obvious fact that the building and the land are very different entities.