« First « Previous Comments 21 - 60 of 85 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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.
Did they create the land? Did they buy the land from someone who created it
You have to do something useful with the land, not simply own it, to make a profit in China. The system we have in the US is that mere ownership gives you the right to steal from the rest of the economy without doing anything useful. Just sucking the blood of people who are creative enough to build something.
Lol, you're agreeing with me! PRC owns the land, so you cannot profit from simply owning land. The profits from mere ownership of land go to the government. You have to do something useful with the land, not simply own it, to make a profit in China. The system we have in the US is that mere ownership gives you the right to steal from the rest of the economy without doing anything useful. Just sucking the blood of people who are creative enough to build something.
So is the Chinese system a failure? No one starts a business there because they cannot get rent from land?
How is the profits go to the government not communism? You have to do something with the land everywhere to make rental income unless you are running a primitive campground. How do you steal from the rest of the economy by mere ownership of land? How much rental income is an empty lot generating in the bay area these days?
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.
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 21 - 60 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.