21–30 of 764 posts
People have been landlords throughout history and renters can only rent if they can pay. Plenty of other generations didn’t have an ability to have their own place so the current people who can’t aren’t special. Each individual’s ethics are not always aligned so there is no one rule to fit all.
I definitely do. It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset, with a price distorted by the money poured into it. Airbnb is also a deeply harmful influence on housing prices. Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water: privatized it and then "democratized" ownership of it. It's easy to get retail investors to buy things at inflated, speculative prices, so the price of water would go up…
Lol we did that in England!
That doesn't mean you can't have exclusive use of some part of it, how else would we encourage people to take care of the land and develop it. But you should continuously pay everyone else for it's exclusive use. Inherited, and corporate (basically immortal) land outright ownership is immoral IMHO.
What would be your proposed solution to this problem, as in how would you remake the real estate market in the US? And perhaps more importantly, how coherent is your solution with the US as it is today?
People have been landlords throughout history and renters can only rent if they can pay. Plenty of other generations didn’t have an ability to have their own place so the current people who can’t aren’t special. Each individual’s ethics are not always aligned so there is no one rule to fit all.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds" — Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice , 1797
This is of course why Smith argued for a tax on the undeveloped value of the land. Sadly not easy to work out, but much harder to avoid and much fairer in the sense that the undeveloped value of your land is that part which benefits most from the services provided by the state.
People have been landlords throughout history and renters can only rent if they can pay. Plenty of other generations didn’t have an ability to have their own place so the current people who can’t aren’t special. Each individual’s ethics are not always aligned so there is no one rule to fit all.
I think it would also be nice if there were some kind of scheme whereby property tax is low for a first home, but increases when you own more than one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a human right to you then? I think of human rights as those things required by all humans to live and be healthy, but you must have your own definition.
Probably a case of negative rights versus positive rights https://alabamapolicy.org/research/understanding-the-differe...