5
0

Landlords are social parasites


 invite response                
2018 Apr 16, 9:31am   16,762 views  85 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/landlords-social-parasites-last-people-should-be-honouring-buy-to-let

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.


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.

Comments 1 - 40 of 85       Last »     Search these comments

1   lostand confused   2018 Apr 16, 9:55am  

Interesting-what would the folks who can't buy do? Move to CA and join the homeless?
2   bob2356   2018 Apr 16, 9:58am  

lostand confused says
Interesting-what would the folks who can't buy do? Move to CA and join the homeless?


Something the georgians never seem to bother to explain. Maybe they plan to live in their cars.
3   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 10:07am  

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.
4   Malcolm   2018 Apr 16, 10:38am  

Are car rental places social parasites as well? Are hotels social parasites?
5   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 10:48am  

No, the production and maintenance of cars is actual work which benefits the public. So that is not rent-seeking.

Hotels are basically very short-term landlords. To the degree that they extract rent for merely owning land, they are parasites. To the degree that they build a hotel and maintain the hotel, they are productive citizens.

Great explanation of rent seeking on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

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.
6   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 10:50am  

lostand confused says
Interesting-what would the folks who can't buy do? Move to CA and join the homeless?



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".
...
Lenin conceived of the communal apartment, and drafted a plan to “expropriate and resettle private apartments” shortly after the Russian revolution. His plan inspired many architects to begin communal housing projects, to create a “revolutionary topography.”[6] The communal apartment was revolutionary by “uniting different social groups in one physical space.”[7] Furthermore, housing belonged to the government and families were allotted an extremely small number of square meters each.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment
7   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 10:54am  

More good explanation of rent-seeking, and how it differs from productive work:

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]
8   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 10:55am  

"Parasitical landlord", "parasitical stockholder", "parasitical savings account owner"..... where does it end?
9   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 16, 11:03am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
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".


Also describes a tenement, for which families are charged obscene amounts. Plenty of those in pre-War USA.

Or, in modern San Fran.
10   bob2356   2018 Apr 16, 11:09am  

Patrick says
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.


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.
11   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 11:13am  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
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".
12   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 16, 11:21am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
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".



The solutions are A) Anti-Anti-Density Laws and B) A land tax, not a property tax, to ensure maximum efficient use of property.

If you're paying $50,000 in land tax, the townhouse with 2-3 units is going down and an 8-10 unit apartment building is gong up.

Besides, why punish people for developing property which creates wealth and jobs?
13   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 11:27am  

Soo, if landlords are eliminated would I have to buy an apartment every time I move somewhere for a year or two?

What about hotels? Are hotel owners parasites too? I mean, they pretty much do what landlord parasites do, just charge much more per day.
14   dublin hillz   2018 Apr 16, 11:27am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
TwoScoopsPlissken says
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".


If techies are sent to collective farms or re-education camps and at the same time, mid/high rise construction is authorized, Bay Area prices can start resembling sacramento/stockton in a few months and homelessness will be cut by 70%.
15   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 11:30am  

dublin hillz says
If techies are sent to collective farms or re-education camps


There is a better solution for these STEM parasites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka?wprov=sfti1
16   HeadSet   2018 Apr 16, 11:43am  

But rent from mere non-productive ownership of land should be taxed at 100%. Owning land benefits no one and produces nothing.

If you at are talking about the land sitting under a single family home, it is taxed enough, at an assessed value. I would not call ownership of land "non-productive" just because it sits under and around a rental home. The homes I have rented out were never free, I had to pay for the house, land included. An that land can includes costs, such as redoing the yard and landscaping after a tenet moves out. The land also "adds value" by location. As you know, two identical homes can have much different costs based on what part of town the land under the house is located. Also, many tenets prefer a yard big enough for kids, which is why some prefer the SFH over an apartment. When talking about dwellings, land is just an integral part of the abode. It is not some separate entity that is exploited on its own. The land is merely a "feature" of the house, just like a hip roof, wide driveway, or 3 car garage.
17   bob2356   2018 Apr 16, 11:47am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
The 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?
18   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 11:52am  

bob2356 says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
The 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.
19   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 16, 11:54am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
There is a better solution for these STEM parasites:

Mine is even better:


"Welcome to Best Buy. Do you need the Geek Squad?"

I honestly believe in the next few years there's going to be a huge shake out of "Pre-Revenue" IT companies.
20   dublin hillz   2018 Apr 16, 12:18pm  

Every time a homeless person freezes or starves to death a STEM parasite is guilty of murder!
21   FortWayne   2018 Apr 16, 12:20pm  

Wholeheartedly agree.

We should be a nation of owners, not renters or debt serfs. Freedom is needed.
22   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 1:41pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
"Parasitical landlord", "parasitical stockholder", "parasitical savings account owner"..... where does it end?


"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%.

It ends with the understanding of the difference between creating something and stealing from people who create.

Stockholding is legitimate investment (except to the degree that the investment is in land, for example) so gains from stock holding should not be taxed.

Savings is your own money which you presumably did something useful to get, and lending money is productive economic activity, so interest on savings should not be taxed.

Get it? Production should not be taxed. Stealing money from productive people's activity is what should be taxed.

It's an incredibly simple distinction. Why do people find it so hard to think about?
23   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 1:44pm  

bob2356 says
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.


Bob, you're a smart guy. Please listen for a moment and do not misrepresent the argument.

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.
24   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 1:46pm  

HeadSet says
The land is merely a "feature" of the house, just like a hip roof, wide driveway, or 3 car garage.


Absolutely not.

The land was there aeons ago, and will be there long after we're all gone. No one created the land. Taxing land does not inhibit land production.

But taxing labor (income tax) and taxing sales (sales tax) do inhibit productive activity. The tax burden should be shifted to income from non-productive rent-seeking so that we may all keep more of we personally create.
25   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 1:48pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
bob2356 says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
The 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.


Georgism is not Communism.

Everyone should get to keep what they produce, or what they traded for the results of someone else's productive labor.

So this means zero tax on income or sales or building or anything else created by human beings. Does that sound like communism?
26   Reality   2018 Apr 16, 1:48pm  

Human nature is not good or evil, but simply lazy! For guys who have to support women and children, there is an extra dose (or several doses, as each woman consumes about 3x as much resources as a man does while producing about half as much, as shown in household spending data and divorce data). Being alive is damn expensive. Rent-seeking behavior is simply a result of this biological drive towards most amount of resources for least amount of work (which is not evil or selfish either, per se, as that is the fundamental drive behind technological advance and productivity improvement; try farming in your backyard with hand tools only if you don't believe me, it's back breaking labor for very little food in return, not a fun existence even if you have the land to do it).

The term "parasitic" has been used frequently by intellectuals in the past 150 years. Merchants and traders were often thought of that way as they don't produce any goods themselves . . . yet, when it was tried to have government bureaucrats to manage trade and commerce instead of merchants . . . the result was far worse rent-seeking behavior by government bureaucrats, as shown in former soviet experiments: mass starvation!

The Georgist idea of 100% tax on land value (effectively centralizing land ownership) would likely result in the same: centralized bureaucracy producing even worse rent-seeking behavior, and making lives even more miserable for the average people who have to make productive use of land.

What's sorely missing in the typical mainstream education is that: value does not exist in abstract, but only subjectively to the person who can make a good use of whatever the resource is. Only two parties can arrive at a negotiated transaction price: because the seller thinks the value of the item is less than the agreed price, while the buyer thinks the value of the same item is more than the agreed price! The two of them don't even agree on the value of the item, but only on a transaction price; the small difference in subjective evaluation of the item is what makes the transaction possible (the difference also has to be larger than the transaction cost, like closing cost in the case of land, transportation cost in movable goods).

If land were to be taxed at 100% value, whose value would be used for assessing? There wouldn't be a market for trading ownership of land, so how will land be evaluated to form the tax basis?

Also, the value of a particular piece of land has to be discovered over time. For example, if a plot of hundreds of acres starts as uneven wooded gully in the middle of nowhere, it has very little value (too uneven to harvest wood); someone might cut all the trees there someday and turn it into a land fill as a recycling center for a few decades; then sprinkle some dirt on it and grow some nice grass turning it into a golf course for a few decades; then after that, the land can be subdivided into lots for home building. How is that parcel supposed to be evaluated? At the original wooded wasteland value? or smelly trash dump value? Golf course no houses? or hundreds of half-acre lots for SFH's? Notice, every step of the way, the developer has been improving the land to achieve higher value. All along the way, timing is critical: making the highly capital-intensive and labor-intensive upgrades too early or at the wrong part of an economic cycle would not only incur high interest expenses but also resulting the land reverting back into the wooded gully wasteland. Seems to me private ownership is far more beneficial to the decades long if not multi-generational development process than letting government bureaucrats who would be prone to taking bribes during his/her short tenure of management in order to seek the most rent out of his/her short-tenure of management while leaving the land in much worse shape in the long run.

It seems to me, a far better societal organization is not stamping out rent-seeking per se, but promote competitive ownership of relatively small holders, so each has competitive market pressure putting a lid on his/her lazy/rent-seeking nature. Preventing market concentration is the most effective antidote against rent-seeking; both private monopoly and "public" monopoly (government bureaucratic ownership/management) result in severe rent-seeking.
27   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 1:57pm  

FortWayne says
Wholeheartedly agree.

We should be a nation of owners, not renters or debt serfs. Freedom is needed.


Absolutely, but if you're taking away land from the public by owning it, you should pay tax on that.

For all work and investment that you do in productive activity, you should be able to keep all of the income from that.

Reality says
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.
28   Evan F.   2018 Apr 16, 1:57pm  

Patrick, I assume you live in the bay area. Do you own property? Just curious as to how your personal experience informs your opinion. If it's prying too much you can tell me to f@#k off LOL.

From my perspective, I own two properties in the Los Angeles area, one I live in (a house) and one I rent out (a townhome). I'm trying to reconcile your statement as to how you think my townhome should be taxed, based on the assessment of separate values of the structure and the land. Compounded on top of that is the glorious Prop 13, which I believe should never have been codified in the first place and is in many ways responsible for CA's housing prices.

I will say this about being a landlord: it's a fucking pain in the ass. And I have had continuously great tenants. I'm likely selling my townhome this year, which I've owned for 14 years. Here's something interesting- I crunched the numbers, and even though my townhome is worth a LOT more than what I bought it for, it actually isn't much different than if I had just thrown it into an index fund. It's comparable, maybe within 1-1.5%.
29   Malcolm   2018 Apr 16, 2:02pm  

Can I safely say that Patrick, you are referring to excess rent? I’m just trying to understand, because you sort of agree that hotels being short term rentals meet your threshhold to a point. I’m just not sure how you differentiate the rent on land, which could be a pasture, or land which could be an LA back yard somehow is different than occupying a house.

Putting in landscaping is the same as a building, and fencing a pasture is also an improvement. If I rent out bare land to someone who is storing a business vehicle, that somehow doesn’t add value to that business? What they pay is what determines the value. That’s why we have private land ownership. Try and store a trailer at a park or some public place and see what that gets you. The fines would be more than rent.

You wouldn’t buy a parcel of land to store just your vehicle, that’s where entrepreneurs come in. So, if it is excessive rent that you have a problem with what is the magic rate of return that you consider normal commerce or at least not parasitic? I am genuinely curious.

BTW, for people who claim Patrick is a right winger, this should give a different perspective.
30   HeadSet   2018 Apr 16, 2:10pm  

I will say this about being a landlord: it's a fucking pain in the ass. And I have had continuously great tenants. I'm likely selling my townhome this year, which I've owned for 14 years. Here's something interesting- I crunched the numbers, and even though my townhome is worth a LOT more than what I bought it for, it actually isn't much different than if I had just thrown it into an index fund. It's comparable, maybe within 1-1.5%.

Wonder how your numbers will work out after the sale. Upon sale, you will be hit with recouped depreciation and capital gains tax. Also taking from the profit will be all the fees, closing costs, and realtor commission (if any).
31   Reality   2018 Apr 16, 2:13pm  

Patrick says
Land values are quite well known.


What is known is "tax assess value," which is subject to the owner's willingness to challenge it; i.e. a mere legal compromise that the involved parties are willing to settle for. I have bought houses with land for less than the land's assessed value alone in the last cycle bottom. The "well known" tax assess value magically went down to somewhat more reasonable level considering how little I paid, only when I brought in my lawyer. Seems to me a "well known" fixed value should not be dependent on whether a lawyer is brought in. In reality, land value change dramatically over time depending on interest rate and local economy. The "tax assess value" is best thought of as a fiction that the town needs in order to run a budget, so the local schools and town hall can stay open.


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.


Agree with you in theory, but in reality, bureaucracy tends to grow. It's very hard for land assessed value not to go up when the owners in the area make the neighborhood into a better neighborhood. Heck, most towns have been raising taxes just because declining interest rate has driven the market price of comparable land higher.
32   Ceffer   2018 Apr 16, 2:43pm  

Social parasite sounds like an insect or bacteria. I prefer social predator, it's much more apex food-chainy.
33   Reality   2018 Apr 16, 3:11pm  

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
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.


Average landlords have to compete against one another in order to fill their units. Also, plenty landlords went bust in places like Detroit and Baltimore. In the next housing crash, we will likely see another wave of wannabe landlords going bust.

Politicians are far more likely to form dynasties, but they are a different class of "landlords" further up the food chain/pyramid. That's why most prominent commercial families eventually go into politics, when their offsprings form too expensive habits to compete effectively in the relatively free market place. If not for political machination, most wealthy families in a relatively free market economy would go through "shirt-sleaves-to-shirt-sleaves in three generations" when their offspring grow up with silver spoon in their mouths and fail to compete effectively in the market place.

A relatively free and competitive market place is the most effective way of "spreading wealth around," far more effective and more productive than the usual political interventions that involve the dead weight of bureacracy. Some people are born into wealthier families than others, just like some people are born better looking than others or taller than others. One can only be happy by embracing what himself/herself is born with and making the best of one's own advantages.
34   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 3:38pm  

Patrick says
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%.


It's a pointless mental masturbation then. The owner of the land will gladly allow you to rent his parcel for free as long as you also pay rent for the building sitting on it. It will be the same monthly payment as you pay now. What exactly did we accomplish with this "reform" again?
35   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 3:45pm  

Patrick says
Production should not be taxed. Stealing money from productive people's activity is what should be taxed.


Stealing is when the victim gets nothing in return. You do get to live in the house in exchange for the money your landlord "steals" from you, right?

It only becomes stealing when he keeps your security deposit for bogus "repairs".
36   bob2356   2018 Apr 16, 3:54pm  

Patrick says

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.


Huh? 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. Property taxes in HK are on the buldings. https://asiabc.co/guide-to-hk/taxation-accounting/property-tax-of-hong-kong-explained/

Are you saying the government should own all land? How is that not communism? No this example doesn't work for me at all.

WTF is rent on the land anyway? How do you differentiate land rent from building rent? If you took the ratio of assesed value land to building then taxed at 100% the percentage the rent that was land you wouldn't have any landlords. The ROI would be negative.

Want to give some nuts and bolts numbers on how this would work? Or is this a it's true because I say it's true discussion.
37   Malcolm   2018 Apr 16, 4:21pm  

Patrick as a follow up to my comment 29, I had a couple of more examples of the same thing. I think in a way you are expressing dissain for passive income versus earned income. While I understand it where would you draw the line on other investments?

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?

Like Bob, I’m also curious how you would differentiate between the structure and the land. if I have a vacant parcel of land and you want to rent it from me but you don’t want to do anything with it, the amount of rent you would pay would be almost nothing just to be able to say that you’re renting the land and not doing anything with it; but if someone owns land and they lease it to you because you want to start a dispensary collective, you are taking that land out of service and that person doesn’t have the use of it anymore so how can it be immoral in any way for a negotiated value of the use of the land for a growing operation?
38   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 5:02pm  

No! It's not about passive income vs earned income.

It's about rent-seeking vs productive work or investment.

Malcolm says
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?


Not a social parasite in both cases, because you invested or worked in actual productive activity, or someone else did and traded with you, or gave it to you, in the case of inheritance.

Malcolm says
I’m also curious how you would differentiate between the structure and the land.


Lol, anyone can tell the difference between structure and land.

Malcolm says
how can it be immoral in any way for a negotiated value of the use of the land for a growing operation?



Because they are getting rent for doing less than nothing. Did they create the land? Did they buy the land from someone who created it No, and no.

They are just putting a chain across the river to extract tolls (see example above) and make everyone in the society except themselves worse off.
39   Patrick   2018 Apr 16, 5:14pm  

bob2356 says
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.


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?

Do you think non-productive rent-seeking is a good thing for an economy or a nation?

Remember that there are three factors of production, per Adam Smith: land, labor, and capital. This is just about land and not about capital, which is defined as things produced by men. Capital is buildings, machinery, intellectual property, things which were created with someone's sweat.

Capitalism and Georgism are perfectly compatible. In fact, much more compatible than the fake capitalism of non-productive rent-seeking.
40   RWSGFY   2018 Apr 16, 5:26pm  

Patrick says
The profits from mere ownership of land go to the government.


So the government is a "parasite" in this case, duh. Do you really prefer to have even more government foot on your neck that it's the case now? How this is not estatist?

Comments 1 - 40 of 85       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions