Bridges are either owned by governments or private companies, and various bridges do require rent (hello toll booth).
I have little issues with land Lords that happen to have one or two extra houses as long as the rents are controlled by governments. Anything beyond those few extra houses should be controlled through taxes. Only government controlled foundations should be able to “own” thousands of houses to rent out, that shit should not be for a private company
No, you don’t. Unless you specifically ordered it to be built, you can funded nothing. The vast majority of landlords are investors hoarding assets. They contribute nothing to society.
Bridges are nearly always funded and owned by governments, and done so through taxes. Toll roads and bridges are a product of capitalism, using state funds to eliminate all costs and allowing profit from something the owning company never paid for (besides the bribes).
Landlords are an example of rot inherent to capitalism. The idea you are entitled to someone else’s work, and are entitled to guaranteed profits. Besides actual jobs like innkeepers, it shouldn’t be allowed in society.
This is true of the bricks, mortar, plumbing etc… but a plurality of the cost of a house (espacily in cities, and espacily in developed countries) is location value, so the plot of land, as well as the purely legal right to build a house on that land.
In my (pretty rural) local area, the cheapest livable houses will go for £180-200,000, whilst a similarly sized plot of land will go for £80-100,000 with planning permission, £5-20,000 if there is no hope of getting planning permission (woodland) and a dilapadated structure in need of complete rebuild will go for £125,000. The actual cost of constructing a house is pretty small, and were it not for land hoarding and the town-and-country planning act (which exists mainly to protect the interests of landholders) a self-build would be within the reach of even minimum wage workers, and wouldn’t even require a loan if done by professional workers.
That’s not to mention landlords exist in the commercial world as well as the residential. A storefront in a major city can cost thousands of dollars a day to rent. Virtually all of the “farmers” you see hopping about in tractors are actually farmhands paying some guy significant portions of the profit for the right to dirt that has been there since before the human race. Mining rights make people ___illionaires, even if they never actually set shovel to stone.
Hence many classical economists, most notably Henry George, argued for a land-improvement split, and the value of the land to be made public good through taxation.
This would be a quality post on r/ancap101 if I was not banned.
I may misunderstand this, but this makes it sound like houses grow on trees and require no human labour to construct
The landlord statistically neither builds the house nor funds it’s construction.
Bridges require no specific rent but require human labor. Maybe we just do that, but with housing.
If I buy a house, I don’t fund it’s construction?
Bridges are either owned by governments or private companies, and various bridges do require rent (hello toll booth).
I have little issues with land Lords that happen to have one or two extra houses as long as the rents are controlled by governments. Anything beyond those few extra houses should be controlled through taxes. Only government controlled foundations should be able to “own” thousands of houses to rent out, that shit should not be for a private company
No, you don’t. Unless you specifically ordered it to be built, you can funded nothing. The vast majority of landlords are investors hoarding assets. They contribute nothing to society.
Bridges are nearly always funded and owned by governments, and done so through taxes. Toll roads and bridges are a product of capitalism, using state funds to eliminate all costs and allowing profit from something the owning company never paid for (besides the bribes).
Landlords are an example of rot inherent to capitalism. The idea you are entitled to someone else’s work, and are entitled to guaranteed profits. Besides actual jobs like innkeepers, it shouldn’t be allowed in society.
This is true of the bricks, mortar, plumbing etc… but a plurality of the cost of a house (espacily in cities, and espacily in developed countries) is location value, so the plot of land, as well as the purely legal right to build a house on that land.
In my (pretty rural) local area, the cheapest livable houses will go for £180-200,000, whilst a similarly sized plot of land will go for £80-100,000 with planning permission, £5-20,000 if there is no hope of getting planning permission (woodland) and a dilapadated structure in need of complete rebuild will go for £125,000. The actual cost of constructing a house is pretty small, and were it not for land hoarding and the town-and-country planning act (which exists mainly to protect the interests of landholders) a self-build would be within the reach of even minimum wage workers, and wouldn’t even require a loan if done by professional workers.
That’s not to mention landlords exist in the commercial world as well as the residential. A storefront in a major city can cost thousands of dollars a day to rent. Virtually all of the “farmers” you see hopping about in tractors are actually farmhands paying some guy significant portions of the profit for the right to dirt that has been there since before the human race. Mining rights make people ___illionaires, even if they never actually set shovel to stone.
Hence many classical economists, most notably Henry George, argued for a land-improvement split, and the value of the land to be made public good through taxation.