• Professorozone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So there should be no land ownership? The government should just build housing for people on land they own, I mean have. Like communism then?

    • Gabu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the ideal solution, but not the only solution.

      So there should be no land ownership

      There already isn’t, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.

      Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a “usefulness” score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn’t have increased taxes. Empty houses aren’t useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.

      • Professorozone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

        So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

        And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

        • Gabu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

          Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…

          So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

          Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.

          And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

          That would be incentivised, yes.

          • Professorozone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?

            • Gabu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.