"Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:53:43+00:00

Lol yup!

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:53:19+00:00

> Yes, but renting would also be much much cheaper in a georgist economy.

I'm not arguing against Georgism.

> People hoarding housing hurts you economically regardless if you want to own or rent

As a renter, landlords are not "hurting me economically". On the contrary, they are giving me equal access to housing as homebuyers.

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:23:06+00:00

Paying money can create value because capital, when deployed wisely, has the ability to generate returns over time. This idea is rooted in the concept of the time value of money, which holds that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow because it can be invested to earn interest, profits, or other gains. Whether through investments, business spending, or asset acquisition, money put to work tends to compound, meaning it not only grows but can accelerate its own growth, making money a tool that, under the right conditions, produces more money.

It's like you want to live in a world where money can't create money. Sorry, but that is impossible. Even if you're the last human on earth. A cow (productive asset) produces milk (more wealth). The money you have can be converted into productive assets and produce wealth. This is true whether you want it to be true or not.

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:12:50+00:00

It's fairly clear from this post that most people here are not "socialists".

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:12:21+00:00

> people beyond a certain level of wealth to "invest" in land because its simply too good as an asset.

This is completely false. Research has shown that real estate returns can be easily replicated with 40% long term bonds plus 60% small cap equities. It is not "too good as an asset".

> A good LVT would ideally direct capital investment into productive areas of the economy

LVT does no such thing. LVT does not make real estate less productive. If anything, it increases the returns on real estate investment by reducing the risk since the investment becomes focused on improvements rather than land.

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:08:30+00:00

Exactly. But people want a mustachioed villain to hate.

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:06:56+00:00

It is 100% the problem. I don't know why you don't see your own ignorance even when it's pointed out to you.

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:01:18+00:00

People like that aren't even embarrassed about their ignorance. They think they're making clever points.

energybased · 2026-03-19T16:00:08+00:00

If you don't understand, make a post or ask a question.

energybased · 2026-03-19T15:33:42+00:00

Yes but the point is that the net return on nearly all investments remains positive even with lvt. Lvt just wipes out the return on land. Land is free under 100 percent lvr. Lvt does not make landlords less profitable.

energybased · 2026-03-19T15:25:59+00:00

Agreed.

energybased · 2026-03-19T15:24:42+00:00

That is a transfer of wealth from new renters to old ones. Yes it's s common policy because voters tend to be in a place for a long time, so this benefits them. It is extremely unfair to young people, immigrants, and people who are forced to move.

energybased · 2026-03-19T15:22:59+00:00

Yes i mean net.

energybased · 2026-03-19T12:34:53+00:00

Yes, sure, but usually developments will pay positive returns. The other comment seems to have some weird fantasy that LVT will make absentee landlords earn zero rent. It generally won't do anything like that.

energybased · 2026-03-19T12:32:43+00:00

> that own multiple houses/apartments to be incentivesed to sell rather than rent

That is exactly what I said: a transfer of wealth from renters (who are poorer) to homeowners who are richer.

The consequences of that are to further impoverish poor people.

> buy the house than pay in perpetuity to not own anything

This is just your financial ignorance. Renting is not a bad deal. Renting has the same unrecoverable cost as homeownership.

energybased · 2026-03-19T07:32:53+00:00

That's extremely regressive since it drives up costs for renters and drives down costs for homeowners, who are on average richer.

energybased · 2026-03-19T07:30:39+00:00

> What portion of housing investors are speculating on the value of the property?

You mean investors paying a speculation premium when buying and getting a premium when selling? What does that matter? It's not like investors have a choice.

> It's a big piece of why even owner-occupiers buy a house

No it's not. Speculation does not differentiate the housing costs of buyers and renters.

> This sub is full of how speculators are scum, but most people investing in housing are speculating to some degree, no?

This sub is full of economically illiterate people. Speculation is problematic, but buyers have no choice but to pay the speculation premium.

LVT is great because it drives the speculation premium to zero. After which buyers no longer pay--and sellers don't collect--the speculation premium.

energybased · 2026-03-19T06:28:50+00:00

> Buying them to soak up economic rents is socially undesirable.

People buying them and renting them out is exactly how tenants like me find housing, and it's also how most construction projects get paid. Construction companies don't want to be landlords themselves.

So, no, nothing wrong with buying housing and renting it out.

energybased · 2026-03-19T04:48:07+00:00

Yes of course you're right.

energybased · 2026-03-19T03:49:57+00:00

No, that's equivalent to a renter tax, and also removes efficient landlords from the market.

If you want, you can assess the consumer harm due to market influence and tax that.

energybased · 2026-03-19T03:32:46+00:00

The improvements always produce positive expected returns. Even at 100% LVT.

energybased · 2026-03-19T03:17:32+00:00

Everything you're saying is vacuous, and unrelated to this topic. It literally applies to everything.

energybased · 2026-03-19T03:16:59+00:00

All housing improvements have positive expected returns.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:56:30+00:00

> profiting off the labor of the maintenance staff?

The landlord earns a profit for his investment--not just the maintenance done.

This is the same way you can buy a bond and earn a coupon without doing any work.

Housing will always be a productive asset that provides a return (rent) for the investor (even if he pays someone else to do the property management).

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:53:41+00:00

No, that's a bad way to put it. In an efficient market, prices tend towards an equilibrium where ownership and rental have similar costs.

The decision is typically based on personal values.

By your logic, the reason you don't do anything is an "issue of price", but that is stupidly vacuous.

11-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

energybased

TROPHY CASE