I think use of the word “rented” there is a bit misleading.
Some central distinctions between renting property and owning it are that there are lease conditions imposed by the owner, much greater restrictions than ownership on how the property can be improved, and the option for the owner to decline renewal of the lease at their sole discretion. Georgism has none of those.
It’s a land tax, and the only real difference between Georgist land taxes and current ones is the magnitude.
Okay, that is fair, my use of “rented” was sloppy. The land user is paying the economic rent the location commands back to the community/society. That is not the same as your typical lease arrangement.
But clearly no ownership right that allows an owner to decline some offer, not matter how high, to transfer that control of the item exists with land (nature) under a Georgist system. So no one is actually buying, or owning, land in that system as understood under the current private ownership currently in place.
The real difference in the Georist land taxes is the alternative concept of land ownership and process for setting tax rates, not merely the magnitude of the taxes that are levied.
I (largely) agree with the statement made that “buying” land is cheaper and “owning” more expensive. However, it does gloss over the fundamental changes related to property rights in land (nature) at the core of the system.
I think use of the word “rented” there is a bit misleading.
Some central distinctions between renting property and owning it are that there are lease conditions imposed by the owner, much greater restrictions than ownership on how the property can be improved, and the option for the owner to decline renewal of the lease at their sole discretion. Georgism has none of those.
It’s a land tax, and the only real difference between Georgist land taxes and current ones is the magnitude.
Okay, that is fair, my use of “rented” was sloppy. The land user is paying the economic rent the location commands back to the community/society. That is not the same as your typical lease arrangement.
But clearly no ownership right that allows an owner to decline some offer, not matter how high, to transfer that control of the item exists with land (nature) under a Georgist system. So no one is actually buying, or owning, land in that system as understood under the current private ownership currently in place.
The real difference in the Georist land taxes is the alternative concept of land ownership and process for setting tax rates, not merely the magnitude of the taxes that are levied.
I (largely) agree with the statement made that “buying” land is cheaper and “owning” more expensive. However, it does gloss over the fundamental changes related to property rights in land (nature) at the core of the system.