Page 1 of 1
The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:20 pm
by Jebus
I've thought a bit about this lately and although I see some selfish practical benefits from the concept of land ownership, the general idea is a bit fugazi. How could anyone claim any piece of the planet as his own???
As a related question, if anyone does claim to "own" a piece of land, how far down can she dig until it is not hers anymore?
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:09 pm
by brimstoneSalad
Isn't it basically rental if there are property taxes?
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:37 am
by sykkelmannen
You are both right. How can we fix this obscenity? I mean: what is the best course of action for an individual today, in order to improve the situation in the future?
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:12 am
by Jamie in Chile
I think private land ownership should be allowed, at least for people's private homes and a medium sized garden. At the very least.
However I think people who own a very large amount of land should have to pay such large taxes that it becomes beneficial for the rest of society that they own so much land.
I do think there should be a limit on private land ownership. If you think about it, this must be true, unless you think it were acceptable for 1 person to own 99% of the land on the planet.
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:36 am
by sykkelmannen
To bring up taxes in a thread that debates the concept of land ownership is kinda funny
That's like asking big Govt to pay more tax to themselves. It doesn't hurt them, and you still get nothing.
If you wanted to be fair, you should take the area suitable for gardening and divide it by the number of people.
Global arable land 14 million square km divided by 7 billion people is 2000 square meters of good farming plot per person, at the very MOST. People tend to live in groups tho so that can be a nice chunk for a family. How big is your medium sized garden?
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:48 am
by Civil_Debate
I'm with 19th Century political and economic thinker Henry George on this. People shouldn't have a right to exclude others from resources they didn't create without paying compensation. George wanted to fund the government exclusively with a single tax on the (unimproved) value of land.
I think that everyone ought to receive a 'citizen's dividend'; a share of the rental value of land used, extracted by the government. Alaska does something similar with their oil; every resident receives a check from the state for their share of the oil revenue.
I think it is important to differentiate the value people create and add to the world from the value they take from the world. When we tax the former, we discourage wealth creation, when we tax the later we discourage consumption. Also, since land retains or even increases its value over time, we foster income inequality by permitting people to store up value in land over the long run. If wealthy people had to invest in capital to grow their fortunes, they would be taking risks and when they succeeded they would be adding value to the world (all things being equal). When they failed, they would lose wealth and reduce income inequality.
Similarity, Cap-and-trade plans that require polluters to buy vouchers to create a given amount of pollutants would be more politically popular, would reduce income inequality, and would be more just if the money raised were returned directly to the citizens. They would pay more for consumer goods to the extent that they required resource consumption and pollution (and so would be incentivized to avoid those products over greener products), but would have more money to spend in general.
That's my 2 cents.
Cheers!
Civil_Debate
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:24 am
by Jebus
Civil_Debate wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:48 am
I'm with 19th Century political and economic thinker Henry George on this. People shouldn't have a right to exclude others from resources they didn't create without paying compensation. George wanted to fund the government exclusively with a single tax on the (unimproved) value of land.
I think that everyone ought to receive a 'citizen's dividend'; a share of the rental value of land used, extracted by the government. Alaska does something similar with their oil; every resident receives a check from the state for their share of the oil revenue.
I think it is important to differentiate the value people create and
add to the world from the value they
take from the world. When we tax the former, we discourage wealth creation, when we tax the later we discourage consumption. Also, since land retains or even increases its value over time, we foster income inequality by permitting people to store up value in land over the long run. If wealthy people had to invest in capital to grow their fortunes, they would be taking risks and when they succeeded they would be adding value to the world (all things being equal). When they failed, they would lose wealth and reduce income inequality.
Similarity, Cap-and-trade plans that require polluters to buy vouchers to create a given amount of pollutants would be more politically popular, would reduce income inequality, and would be more just if the money raised were returned directly to the citizens. They would pay more for consumer goods to the extent that they required resource consumption and pollution (and so would be incentivized to avoid those products over greener products), but would have more money to spend in general.
That's my 2 cents.
Cheers!
Civil_Debate
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 am
by bigbossomni
so because i own 40 acres am i evil to you jebus?
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:09 am
by Civil_Debate
bigbossomni wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 am
so because i own 40 acres am i evil to you jebus?
Of course I can't speak for Jebus, but I wouldn't say you were evil or even morally wrong for owning land. Land is going to be owned by someone in our system, and I don't see how your owning it necessarily makes the world a worse place. That depends upon what you do with the land and the wealth that you generate from it. I do advocate legal changes that would probably be to your economic disadvantage, (Though, it still may make economic sense for you to possess 40 acres; you would just need to get enough use out of it to effectively compensate others for excluding them from a resource you didn't create.) but then almost every change in public policy has winners and losers. As good citizens of a state, it is incumbent on us to advocate policies that improve the state on balance, regardless of how we might personally benefit or suffer from those changes.
Re: The fucked up concept of land ownership
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:45 pm
by bigbossomni
i grow some crops and have a mini hatchery of chickens