Olgratin_Magmatoe @ Olgratin_Magmatoe @startrek.website

Posts

1

Comments

295

Joined

2 yr. ago

You getting exploited for free labor by your landlord grandparents only further proves my point that landlords don't actually do any work.

Like what?

Anything not needed for human survival.

There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need

Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

Landlords don't work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses?

I sure am aware. And I'm always aware that the people who do those things aren't landlords. They're construction workers and maintenance workers.

The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally.

The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

Funny how "what the market can bare" equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

Building is separate from owning.

it can take 30 years to pay it off.

It can take 30 years for the tenants to pay it off. Landlords aren't paying for that out of the goodness of their hearts. It's instead ultimately the tenants.

Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

They hire people to do that, they don't do it themselves.

This is wealth extraction

Yup. I'm ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.

So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment

Yeah that's bullshit too and shouldn't be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.

but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

That's bullshit too.

You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

If the "safest most attainable way" to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn't not worth it.

And it arguably isn't the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system's failures.

Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

To use it for a business or enjoyment. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

What should people invest in then?

Literally any other type of business.

How is land ownership handled?

People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.

Hey, give them some credit. They did a bunch of other horrible shit aside from treason to earn people's hate.

People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.

No single solution will get you all the way there.

Absolutely. Public transportation needs to be comprehensive.

What needs to happen first is fuel price needs to be so high that people are incentivized to

Absolutely. The fossil fuel industry recieves billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies every year. Why in the actual fuck are we still paying for something that is actively killing us? It makes no sense. All of the subsidies to fossil fuels needs to be re-routed towards public transportation and green energy.

Trains can transport higher loads of people though. So ultimately both trains and busses need to be the priority.

? I never said cars are better?

Sorry, it seemed like that's what you were implying.

Additionally, many trams and busses here have narrow stairs to enter or a huge gap to the floor.

It seems like there is quite a bit of difference in the construction of busses/trains between our countries which was causing us to talk past each other. For reference, here is a standard bus entrance:

And trains:

I know there are some train/tram systems that aren't as good as this, and it isn't the standard, but it should be.

They still build crossings like these and call it “modernized”

Yeah that's some bullshit.

For kids the biggest problem is that in a lot of vehicles the stop isn’t announced.

Here that's not so much of a problem. All busses have voice announcements and an LED display for the next stop. I'm not quite sure about the trains though because there are basically none in my city.

And when the bus is (too) full they can’t see the monitors or out of the windows. (That’s a problem for all very short people I guess.)

That's not too hard of a problem at least, as you can run more busses on a line to deal with overcrowding.

American here, I have a disabled family member. Cars are ultimately harder on them because they physically cannot lift themselves into a car while also stowing their 200lbs wheelchair.

A bus or train doesn't have that problem and are therefore better.

And the more walk able the area the better because it makes it far easier. I'm sure there are disabled and elderly people who have an easier time using cars. But to say in a broad sweeping generalization that it's better for all disabled and elderly people is a mistake. Cars should not be the first go to for a solution.

And kids can't even use cars. They are dependent on public transportation and the walkability in their area.

Maybe they should stop defaming and lying to the public and then they wouldn't have rhese problems.

I'm lucky enough to live in a place that is a little bit walkable (7 eleven, pizza shop, beer store 2 min walking with a grocer 15 walk), there is so much more that could be done. I wish I didn't have to get a car, and I am so close to basically ditching mine for an e-bike. The only thing stopping me is that my city's bike safety is not the best.

I'm right there with you. I feel like I'm talking with aliens when I say stuff like this to other americans.

Things like that is exactly why there needs to be a limit on how many buildings/houses an owner can own.

Where there’s an opportunity to game the system, those with means will.

Absolutely. It's one of my few gripes with georgism. And at the end of the day a shitty implementation of georgism is better than our current shit show of billionaires and mega corps paying $0 or next to $0 in taxes. Sometimes they even get paid instead.

But anyways, I haven't seen much detail about how to fairly valuate land, but I've had some thoughts on it. The number one thing should be that all land is taxed at the same percentage, but each plot is valued differently. I think one of the ways to do this would be to simply calculate how far a given plot is from the nearest city center, and factor in how big the population of that city is.

It's something that can be objectively measured, should be roughly correlated with what we could subjectively agree on is valuable, and isn't something that could be gamed easily.

I would like to see working examples first, if possible.

The Netherlands has a land value tax, though it is not the sole income source for their government.

https://www.iamexpat.nl/housing/real-estate-news/how-does-it-work-taxation-real-estate-netherlands

https://www.government.nl/topics/valuation-of-immovable-property/how-can-i-check-the-woz-value-is-correct

My understanding is that the government employs people to assign a value to each plot, and from there the use case of the land is considered. Land owners can then appeal the judgement if they like. I know there are some other countries besides the Netherlands that have a LVT system, but the Netherlands is the first that comes to mind. I'd honestly be ok with either of these systems of determining land value, either the one I made up or the Netherland's. At the end of the day it's pretty much the only way to tax the rich without them just moving their money elsewhere. You can't move land after all, and much of their wealth is tied up in land.

Here is a research paper into the effects that might interest you.

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2022/263/article-A001-en.xml

Georgism is not a form of capitalism. Georgism is a strategy for government revenue. Regardless of what type of economy you have, unless you have pure anarchy there needs to be a source of income for the government. Georgism is the least bad option, they're all bad.

I usually fall somewhere in the range of what people call socialism. I'm certainly not a capitalist.