A land value tax is an absolute must, same goes for the rest of what you’ll said.
But it isn’t a magic wand. The culture still needs to catch up, as many unfortunately still see being a landlord as an actual valid job. And even under a land value tax system landlords could still exist. Nowhere near as exploitative, but they’d still exist.
The concept of a free market relies on a hidden assumption that the choice between products is a free and easy one with a low switching cost. Housing is none of those things. It takes time, money, energy, you need to be able bodied or able to afford movers. If you have a job you might be stuck in a given area. People are heavily de-incentivized from moving, and that’s always going to be the case no matter how housing is made and distributed.
As a result, landlords will always have enough room to exist in a housing market, even if it is a land value tax system. So if by “LVT would fix this” you mean stop landlords from existing, LVT is only a stepping stone.
A VERY good stepping stone, but only a stepping stone.
I think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management. The former isn’t a legitimate job, gathering its profits from economic rents borne of land and housing scarcity, while the latter is a legitimate job, earning its profits from the labor of managing and maintaining rental housing.
And so with a sufficiently high LVT, approaching the full rental value of land as Henry George proposed, and a much more YIMBY regulatory environment, I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.
That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I’m curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.
Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate “investment” as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the “line goes up” phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn’t appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.
think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management.
Agreed, 100%
That understanding and change of language will have to be a part of the cultural shift needed to fix it.
I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.
It would certainly help a lot. But after a certain point it would just be diminishing returns due to the aforementioned switching cost.
That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I’m curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.
I think the remedy for that has to be a little more intentional than leaving it to the effects of a LVT. Corporations should not be permitted to own any form of housing. Multi unit residences should be co-ops/non market housing. If there isn’t enough, then the government needs to make more.
So individuals can still own houses, and medium/high density housing is still affordable/plentiful enough.
There seems to be growing sentiment (at least on the internet) to get corporations banned from owning housing, and that’s good. But it still needs to pass the hurdle of legalized bribery and our congress failing to represent us. A given policy has 30% chance to pass regardless of public support or disapproval. And policy that benefits the rich obviously has much better chances of passing. This problem within congress is a huge blocking point.
Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate “investment” as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the “line goes up” phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn’t appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.
Land value tax would fix this
And abolishing exclusionary zoning, parking minimums, and other anti-housing land use policies
A land value tax is an absolute must, same goes for the rest of what you’ll said.
But it isn’t a magic wand. The culture still needs to catch up, as many unfortunately still see being a landlord as an actual valid job. And even under a land value tax system landlords could still exist. Nowhere near as exploitative, but they’d still exist.
The concept of a free market relies on a hidden assumption that the choice between products is a free and easy one with a low switching cost. Housing is none of those things. It takes time, money, energy, you need to be able bodied or able to afford movers. If you have a job you might be stuck in a given area. People are heavily de-incentivized from moving, and that’s always going to be the case no matter how housing is made and distributed.
As a result, landlords will always have enough room to exist in a housing market, even if it is a land value tax system. So if by “LVT would fix this” you mean stop landlords from existing, LVT is only a stepping stone.
A VERY good stepping stone, but only a stepping stone.
I think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management. The former isn’t a legitimate job, gathering its profits from economic rents borne of land and housing scarcity, while the latter is a legitimate job, earning its profits from the labor of managing and maintaining rental housing.
And so with a sufficiently high LVT, approaching the full rental value of land as Henry George proposed, and a much more YIMBY regulatory environment, I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.
That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I’m curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.
Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate “investment” as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the “line goes up” phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn’t appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.
Agreed, 100%
That understanding and change of language will have to be a part of the cultural shift needed to fix it.
It would certainly help a lot. But after a certain point it would just be diminishing returns due to the aforementioned switching cost.
I think the remedy for that has to be a little more intentional than leaving it to the effects of a LVT. Corporations should not be permitted to own any form of housing. Multi unit residences should be co-ops/non market housing. If there isn’t enough, then the government needs to make more.
So individuals can still own houses, and medium/high density housing is still affordable/plentiful enough.
There seems to be growing sentiment (at least on the internet) to get corporations banned from owning housing, and that’s good. But it still needs to pass the hurdle of legalized bribery and our congress failing to represent us. A given policy has 30% chance to pass regardless of public support or disapproval. And policy that benefits the rich obviously has much better chances of passing. This problem within congress is a huge blocking point.
100% agreed.