dagblog - Comments for "The Ground Beneath Our Feet"

Yeah, with the caveat that

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:00:10 +0000

Yeah, with the caveat that it's much more than the facade. It would have made little difference if Gaudi had decorated the walls of Caprini-Green. The whole structure was misconceived.

I can see some advantages to limited public housing (as opposed to subsidized housing), but as a general rule, I wouldn't trust the government to build my house.

Ah, it's the

EmmaZahn — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:53:32 +0000

In reply to I was speaking specifically

Ah, it's the architecture!

Now I get it and agree. Something more Gaudi-like would have been better than the antiseptic and existential Le Corbusier designs. More human and way people friendlier than the dungeon grays of the USSR.

As for financing the whole thing, housing vouchers are definitely preferable to building supermax ghettos but I also think it would be good for the government to be able to build and lease both residential and commercial real estate in direct competition with the private sector rather than subsidizing and over regulating it. By both setting and meeting industry standards, private as well as public housing costs and quality could improve.

I was speaking specifically

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:06:07 +0000

In reply to Still would like to know

I was speaking specifically about public housing developments, not subsidies or abatements for private developers. In those cases, properties still operate according to market principles, just with public support, which I enthusiastically endorse.

I confess to know little about the history of government housing, but my sense has been that when governments build residential buildings, ideological and public engineering objectives tend to override the residential interests of the tenants. So the Soviets created gray Stalinist skyscrapers to glorify the simple proletariat, while the West built Le Corbusier superblocks that we're finally tearing down.

I would add that if you

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:12:16 +0000

In reply to So a private homeowner does

I would add that if you exclude private residences, I don't think that you can make much of an impact on tax distribution. The nation's Trumps don't have that much money relative to the size of the economy.

So a private homeowner does

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:56:38 +0000

In reply to G, I think I see your

So a private homeowner does not pay any land tax/ground rent?

Nonetheless, my point about landlords still holds. First, few landlords buy with cash. They factor in the cost of capital, the maintenance costs, and the expected rents. And it's my sense that most recently purchased properties operate close to margin, since the buy price reflects the expected return.

Second, I assume that most landlords would face a net loss of income under the proposal. Otherwise, what's the point of the change if it doesn't readjust the tax burden?

That means that the loss of income from rents would render many properties unprofitable.

In that case, landlords would either have to a) raise rents, b) sell the properties, or if neither option is tenable, c) abandon the properties.

Or to put it another way, if rents, the cost of capital, and maintenance costs remain fixed as revenue declines, the only variable that can be adjusted is the real estate value. So after a mass sell-off / walk-off, you eventually reach a new equilibrium with much lower real estate prices to account for the lower expected returns. That might be OK (ignoring the interim trauma), but it will also reduce the tax base.

I think my insistence in part

Elusive Trope — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:28:31 +0000

In reply to Your insistence on a

I think my insistence in part comes from recently immersing myself in this issue in order to write the blog I did, along with my personal experiences with private rights movement. I guess my point is that the notion of selling the philosophy should be put aside for the time being if your goal is to sell the policy in the short-term (a worthy endeavor in my opinion).

I suppose while they might have an intuitive sense that they do not really own the land, they have just a powerful sense of what is they believe the way things ought to be. The reality may be the government (as opposed to the "people'') may be able to dictate to them what can and cannot do, but deep down they believe this a result of the intrusive stepping over the line. Not all people obviously. But within the segment of the population that makes up the conservative side of the field, this is very prevalent. IMHO.

I actually just bought a new

Verified Atheist — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:23:24 +0000

In reply to It might seem difficult, but

I actually just bought a new house myself (back in May), and I know just how expensive our tiny plot of land was. The reason my land costs this much, however, is because of what is built on nearby properties (as well as other factors, of course). This makes me think that while the supply of land is inelastic (for all intents and purposes), its value most definitely is not. Furthermore, what my neighbors build affect the value of my land, which would seem to lead to the problem of gentrification. Granted, we already have these problems with ordinary property taxes. I suppose this is all taken into account in George's proposal. I'm just not getting it. This doesn't imply it's wrong, just that I"m not understanding it. I feel like many other smart people here are also struggling with it, and I think that dagblog has a smarter-than-average audience, so I do think that makes this a difficult sell. Of course, selling things doesn't always require the "buyer" to understand it, I suppose.

I'm with you basically on a

Elusive Trope — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:22:07 +0000

In reply to I understand what you're

I'm with you basically on a policy front. And I realize you are blogging here and not red state. But in terms of framing, I would say one would want to drop the philosophy and present is simply as something that make good economic sense, with the tag line that it is going after the Trumps and not the hard working class. The philosophy just opens it up to needless attacks. We deal in a sound bite world. Unfortunate but true.

As far as this goes:

I am technically a "land owner," but as anyone in this situation can tell you, I do not own this land in the sovereign sense, which is the sense that you describe. I cannot do whatever I want with it. I cannot dig massively into the Earth or build a skyscraper. Where I live, I can't play loud music after 10PM. I can't even own a fucking chicken! How's that for me owning the owny hell out of what I own and not the onerous government?

I agree with you, but as the scenario with the wetlands I described in my blog on this matter, the acceptance of limits is not absolute. While if asked outright, most people would not say they are the sovereign owner of the land, they do respond to government intrusion as something which needs to be weighed on its merits. If they believe it stepping over a line, they will resist. And given the reaction of some of those land owners over the GMA regulations, they saw themselves as ultimately the sovereign owners, right down to getting out their guns to protect what is theirs. It is within this view that one can also the justification for shooting and killing any intruders on the property they believe intend to do harm. One foot off their property, no. Step one foot onto my property, yes.

AFAIK, you're right about

DF — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:13:41 +0000

In reply to I have a "friend" on FB who

AFAIK, you're right about George's claims. He did believe that his policies would help eliminate poverty. That was the whole impetus for him writing on the subject in the first place. He wanted to understand why, as society seemed to become richer, there appeared to be more poverty, not less.

And the Henry George Theorem would seem to support, using modern economic tools, that George may have been spot on.

Your insistence on a

DF — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:10:45 +0000

In reply to The implication here is that

Your insistence on a particular notion of ownership aside, it's really only relevant if one is invested in selling the fundamental philosophy. In that sense, it's entirely semantic.

But, as I contend above, I don't think you necessarily have to sell the philosophy in order to sell the policy. Again, explore all the very real ways that I've outlined above in which the land that I own is not mine to do whatever I wish with. I think that you might be underestimating the extent to which people have an intuitive sense that this is true.