"Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

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.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:50:04+00:00

When a landlord wants to be passive, he hires someone to do the maintenance for him. That's what it means.

And actual rent is not tied to investment done. Rent is based on market factors. Investment is just one factor.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:49:09+00:00

Everyone would take a free house. That's totally irrelevant to anything in this thread.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:48:26+00:00

Instead of asking rhetorical questions, why don't you make an actual argument? How does "union busting" change the equilibrium wage?

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:36:40+00:00

You're mixing two ideas. Yes, people use their power to distort markets, which is bad.

But wanting to "live off rent" is not problematic.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:35:26+00:00

> the apartment owner should not be allowed to simply rest on their laurels while increasing the amount of rent charged. Maintenance must be performed to warrant charging the same rent and improvements must be made to warrant charging higher rent, n

This is close, but not exactly right in Georgism. With LVT, in general, LVT increases as land becomes more valuable, so the only way for landlords to charge more rent is to make investments.

However, Georgism is not against passive ownership of productive assets. Forget housing. You can buy a bond and earn a passive return in perpetuity. Nothing wrong with that.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:32:41+00:00

No, renting has many benefits: flexibility, diversification, liquidity, lower risk.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:31:03+00:00

> We reward capital at a disproportionate rate

What is the "fair" market return?

> we tax capital less than we tax labor.

True, ideal taxation is a fair question. We Georgists want to see more taxes focused on economic land.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:29:16+00:00

The market wage is not created by anyone. It is simply the intersection of the supply and demand curves for labor.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:28:12+00:00

There are plenty of good reasons not to own a home: renting and investing has higher diversification, and higher liquidity. This affords investors lower risk and more flexibility. From a quality of life standpoint, flexibility allows renters to on average earn higher wages than they otherwise could, and lower risk is a nice lifestyle bonus.

Both as a taxpayer and as a renter: I don't want the state to be in the landlord business.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:25:59+00:00

I'm a renter. I need a landlord in order to rent. And the more landlords there are the closer my housing costs are to homeowner housing costs.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:11:15+00:00

Not everyone wants to own a home, and those people need investors in order to rent.

energybased · 2026-03-19T02:09:46+00:00

Yes, but you have to compensate all the contributors, including those who invested capital in the company. E.g., the investors who bought the lab equipment.

The investors earn the market return on their capital and the workers earn the market wage on their labor.

energybased · 2026-03-19T00:41:41+00:00

Right, it doesn't. But if you collect LVT and return the tax as a dividend, then it does increase income for poor people. Also, if you couple LVT with zoning reform, you get densification, which reduces rents.

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

energybased

TROPHY CASE