In all our long investigation we have been advancing to this simple truth: That as land is necessary to the exertion of labor in the production of wealth, to command the land which is necessary to labor, is to command all the fruits of labor save enough to enable labor to exist.
Emphasis mine. The capitalists want it all, even the little that has been reserved for the reproduction of the worker. George goes on to finger finance capital as well:
We have been advancing as through an enemy’s country, in which every step must be secured, every position fortified, and every by-path explored; for this simple truth, in its application to social and political problems, is hid from the great masses of men partly by its very simplicity, and in greater part by widespread fallacies and erroneous habits of thought which lead them to look in every direction but the right one for an explanation of the evils which oppress and threaten the civilized world. And back of these elaborate fallacies and misleading theories is an active, energetic power, a power that in every country, be its political forms what they may, writes laws and molds thought—the power of a vast and dominant pecuniary interest.
But if the families that live own them is it really a investment? I know home ownership culture in the US is a bit different, but are those that buy the homes to live in them really a problem? Aren’t the people owning homes without the intention to use them as housing but as a way to make/invest their money the problem? What would be won with the residents no longer owning/buying the home they live in?
Yes it is.
Even if they never sell and die in the home the children still inherit it and then often sell it off.
However most people sell and downsize or move into a home and use that money they made to fund their retirement partially.
Could you explain to me how you think a ideal/improved housing market would look like? Who would own the houses?
People can own houses, I have no issue with that.
What should happen is a land value tax, which only applies to the land and not the building. It should be a very large percentage of the value of the property each year.
This does 2 things,
First it drops the value of homes. Significantly. People will not be willing to buy a million dollar home if the yearly tax is $150,000 so the seller is likely only going to get $200-300k, and the tax will be more like $30-50k a year at that point. The tax dollars should be offset by either reducing income taxes or providing a basic income. That way even though the tax seems stupidly high, it’s partially balanced out by tax savings.
Second thing it does is massively encourage development of desirable properties. Since the tax is on land and not the building if you have an apartment you’re going to pay a much smaller amount of tax than on a detached house.
Obviously the value of land is higher in cities already so detached houses in rural areas are less affected for those that choose to live in less desirable areas.
Who defines the Value how? Is it just the price it was last sold for? Is there an option to just give up the land? If so, wouldn’t it discourage the use of land as you then have to pay a huge tax regardless of if your endeavors are successful?
If you compensate the tax with a reduced income tax I think most people would still have way less as they don’t even pay that much income tax to begin with. And disregarding the usual UBI problems, I don’t think that the tax would make enough money to give everyone a UBI of 30k-50k.
Also this is practically mass expropriation, at that point you might as well sozialise the land and then rent them out/provide universal housing directly
The value is defined the same way we currently do it for property taxes, there’s no real change needed there.
There is already an option to give up land, and yes that should continue. The government can just take it back and sell it to someone who wants it.
Yes, it would discourage the use of land for unproductive purposes. For business purposes (which I assume is what you’re talking about) businesses that need large amounts of land would likely just be further out from the most desirable land locations. In desirable areas, multi-story offices, malls, etc. would be the norm to handle commercial uses. Strip malls and massive parking lots can die a horrible death and I would be pleased as a peach.
As for the income tax thing, that really depends on your jurisdiction. The amount for the UBI would directly be set based on the amount of the tax to offset a “normal” usage of property, a family of 4 in a 3-4 room townhouse in a city shouldn’t pay any more under the new system. A family of 3 in a condo would probably end up with more money, and a retired couple in a detached house near downtown would pay significantly more (or likely sell and move). Some ultra-rich jackass in a mansion 20 minutes from the core would just have to pay to keep the privledge of doing that.
This system doesn’t remove the ownership aspects that come with private property, which means it provides people with choice and control that would be lost with a socialized/government run housing system.
At the end of the day though it encourages more efficient use of land, removes investment in land for speculative purposes, and by both reducing prices and removing income taxes and/or UBI benefits working people over investment/capital.
Overall I think I get your point, but how would a socialized housing system remove choice?
First, the housing units:
If the government is the one building housing, they aren’t going to produce a massive variety of different types in various locations. They’re going to pick a bunch of standard types and produce those repeatedly.
This is evident in pretty much every country that has any amount of socialized housing.
Secondly, the “ownership” piece as it relates to improvements:
If everyone is renting from the government, they’re not going to be doing things like renovating their kitchen or bathroom the way they want. It either won’t be allowed, or even if you’re allowed then if you go ahead and do it then need to move you’re just out the entire value despite making improvements for the next tenant.
There are all sorts of scenarios where socialized housing already has issues, like when they make an entire building just for disabled people. Sounds great, until you realize that means that people with those disabilities now have extremely limited location choice, and no ability to live in a building with able-bodied relatives or friends.
In socialized housing situations where there aren’t enough total units, which is most of them, it also becomes almost impossible to move because they rarely like playing music chairs and tracking where everyone wants to go to. They just slap the next person on the list into a unit.
Not necessarily its just the economically most efficient option. Also the government doesn’t necessarily need to provide the housing, it could only socialize the land and rent it out.
Where I live it is quite common that one renovates the apartment they are renting. The government could also incentivise this by eg offering a rent reduction.
It’s better then disabled people not having a house they can properly live. Also this isn’t something that has to be done and I personally don’t of this happening (if it did, that society likely didn’t have good support for disabled people in general, so disabled people would likely have had trouble affording a house at all regardless of housing system)
Housing markets without out enough units exist in a non socialised housing market as well and then they just slap the highest paying (most wealthy) person into the unit. Not much better if you ask me