🚀 go-pugleaf

On 12 Oct 2004 23:41:46 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4166fb9c.13892742@news.telus.net>...
>> On 7 Oct 2004 17:13:33 -0700, fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
>> Bonsignore) wrote:
>>   
>> >I proposed a policy to handle land ownership with the purpose of
>> >evening out wealth distribution, on the assumption that for families
>> >owning a place to live is better than renting.
>> 
>> The problem is, your solution does not socialize land rent.  It
>> socializes improvements.  It punishes and robs those who have
>> contributed to the wealth of the community by constructing
>> improvements where others live, while leaving the vast non-residential
>> landholdings of the idle rich untouched.  It is a Band-Aid solution
>> that would undoubtedly make the problem worse in the long run, not
>> least by providing a convenient example of "failed land reform."
>> 
>Except that most rented housing had been depreciated and is own by
>financially stable, rich people who didn`t pay the construction but
>only bought the property to have an easy income, while paying very
>small land taxes.

But taxing away the land rent rather than confiscating the
improvements would give them an incentive to invest more in
improvements, rather than punishing whatever investment in
improvements they had already made.

>Tell the last to the families that suddenly would
>have life stability plus additional disposable income to cover those
>expenses they have been avoiding for lack of sufficient income.

They'd have more disposable income and better accommodation as well as
life stability if the land rent were taxed.

>Simply
>better leisure time quality makes a difference. And old owners receive
>a compensation, in some cases lump sums, in other an income stream.

Compensation paid for by whom?

>The band aid makes a big difference.

It covers the sore, allowing it to fester out of view.

-- Roy L