Housing projects were generally built on fairly valuable land. If left to the market, the housing built there would have been quite acceptable.Quote:
Because once upon a time in America, the Projects were considered "good enough land to live on".
I have suggested the mode (most frequent) land value used per person is a good enough number, and it's a statistic not subject to bureaucratic revision. I don't think the precise amount of the exemption matters very much, as long as it is equal for all. Anywhere around 10%-20% of per capita rent would probably work well enough, depending on local conditions.Quote:
So if this is based on bureaucratic trust OF ANY KIND, by any bureaucratically changeable formula, the entire idea has all the hallmarks of a nasty, rotten, individual-abusive stinker to begin with.
No, HK may be the most expensive place to buy a house, but millions of ordinary working people manage to live there quite well and at modest cost, most of them in publicly owned housing. The HK government has unfortunately been following a policy of artificially restricting supply to increase its land revenue, shoveling vast unearned wealth into landholders' pockets, rather than just increasing the fraction of rent it recovers and thus reducing the welfare subsidy to landholders.Quote:
I've spent a LOT of time in Hong Kong. I renew my Chinese visa there and conduct business there all the time. It just happens to be THE most expensive place to live in the world, whether "buying" (the LVT version) or renting by natural extension (given that even an LVT "purchase" can be sublet, or rented out).
The universal individual land tax exemption would be the amount of land value considered necessary for a normal person to avail himself of the opportunities and advantages government, the community and nature provide -- i.e., to participate in society as a productive citizen. It would be analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption, except that it would be the exact same amount for every resident citizen. No adjustments for married couples, singles, children, etc. Families living in the same dwelling (i.e., on the same taxable land parcel) would pool their exemptions. I envision LVT as being primarily local, so the exemption amounts would likely be different in Chicago and Baltimore. Your tenure would be somewhat more secure than with a private landlord, as if the land rent increased, you would still have the option of just paying it. If you used more than the exempt amount of land and didn't pay the tax, you would likely be dispossessed in favor of someone able to use the land more productively and more willing to pay for the advantages of which he deprived others.Quote:
What do you mean by "universal individual exemption", "secure tenure", and specifically how would that play out in terms of taxes, regulatory controls, transfers (e.g., I want to move from Baltimore to Chicago) - and what circumstance could theoretically cause government to forcibly evict, or otherwise move someone with a "universal individual exemption"?
What happens to a familys land exemption when a child grows up and moves out? Would they be forced to tear down the portions of their home not included in the exempted land if they couldn't afford the tax?
Stephen, please consider the possibility that you actually want the results that LVT (with a uniform, universal individual exemption) would achieve, but just do not know enough economics to understand how LVT would achieve them.Quote:
I do not believe in property "rights", or rights of ownership of land for any but homesteaders. Individuals, as a matter of right. Not for governments, corporations, foreigners, fictitious collectives of any kind, and not as a commodity to be speculated on or traded in bulk or mass quantities. They really can all be driven out on a rail, as far as I am concerned, abolished (in the form of government) or taxed completely out of existence if they don't serve the public interest. But not sovereign individuals one to another - that truly is evil.
The only problems for me are where to VERY CAUTIOUSLY draw the line with individuals. If I see a Warren Buffet buying up an entire state, that bastard's got some 'splainin to do. If I see a farmer taking on a thousand acres, my only question is whether it's being farmed, or just farmed out. But if he's biting off what he can really chew, I don't have a problem with that. House flippers, land speculators, commercial developers, etc., can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Then it really is a question of whether it serves a public interest or not. They are acting as a matter of privilege in such cases, and I don't have a problem with slapping them into their places - especially if it affects the ability of the middle, working, and poorer classes to own land of their own.
If they couldn't afford the tax after deducting their lower pooled exemptions, they'd seek accommodation in a location better suited to their needs and means (hurray for the market!), or find some way to use the land more productively (they might know someone else who would like to live there, or a neighbor might want to use some of their vacant land for parking their RV, gardening, etc.). Lots of people are willing to pay for a room to sleep in, or room and board, and their exemptions would come with them. The homeowners might even put in a basement suite and become small-time landlords.
Everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.Quote:
Who cares if Buffet buys a bunch of property?
So does the purchaser of a slave -- except that land, by definition, needs no maintenance.Quote:
He also has to bear the burden of opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.