How to fix the housing problem?

Of course that is just baldly false. I have stated many facts. Some of them are stated again, below:

As you know, that is an absurd and disingenuous strawman fallacy that I have already refuted many times by identifying the relevant facts. In a geoist economy, exclusive land tenure and public revenue institutions are just and efficient, so secure, exclusive tenure is rightly obtained by paying the community that provides it the market price of the locational advantages the exclusive tenure holder excludes everyone else from using.

Tongue in cheek is right. As proved above, you have never even attempted to address anything I have actually said. Watch:

See? I have stated many times the fact that in a geoist economy, secure, exclusive tenure is obtained by justly compensating the community of those whom the exclusive land user deprives of the land. You then just ignore that fact, and pretend I have not stated it.

See? I have stated many times the fact that in a geoist economy, secure, exclusive tenure is obtained by justly compensating the community of those whom the exclusive land user deprives of the land. You then just ignore that fact, and pretend I have not stated it.

See? I have stated many times the fact that in a geoist economy, secure, exclusive tenure is obtained by justly compensating the community of those whom the exclusive land user deprives of the land. You then just ignore that fact, and pretend I have not stated it.

See? I have stated many times the fact that in a geoist economy, secure, exclusive tenure is obtained by justly compensating the community of those whom the exclusive land user deprives of the land. You then just ignore that fact, and pretend I have not stated it.

No, that is just another bald fabrication on your part because you cannot address anything I have actually said, as proved above. I have stated many times that Marxism-socialism is even worse than capitalism.

It only happened in other countries because evil, despicable liars succeeded in deceiving people about the difference between Marxism and geoism.

No, that is merely another bald fabrication on your part. It is the landowner who takes the fruits of other people's labor in return for contributing exactly nothing, and I will thank you to remember it.

Like my right to liberty...?

People making just compensation for what they take from others is self-evidently fair. You just want to be legally entitled to take from others without making just compensation.

Why can't you ever remember that Hong Kong and China have already proved you hilariously wrong?

 

You are just sad, now.

 

See the bolded. It's called Real Estate taxes, which are already being paid. You can't seem to realize when someone's property is assessed, value of the property is taken into account including natural resources, location, view, access, and value of improvements.

Do us all a favor, and accept the fact that no one is entitled to land that has been paid for, and is continuing to be paid for, just because they want access to something they aren't entitled to.

Owning land does not deprive other people of the ability to ear a living, buy or rent shelter, eat or clothe themselves. If they want something THEY have to put forth the labor or knowledge that helps them attain it.

No one owes you, or anyone else a living, housing or shelter. And if you find China's method of doing things so appealing, then perhaps you should consider residing there. The US is not, and hopefully never shall be, a place where hard work, determination and willingness to to succeed is dictate by government.

I am done with this conversation since you seem to only be capable of calling me evil, facts I've provided as garbage, and yet you provide no facts, no validation and no support for your position. You deny what Geoism/Georgism is. It is a failed theory, and there is nothing that's going to change that.

 

No it isn't. That is just another fabrication on your part. Real estate ("property") taxes are a mere fraction -- typically a small one -- of the market value of what the landowner is taking from the community, as proved by the (often astronomical) market value of the land title. They are also levied on improvement value, which unlike land value, comes from the owner, not the community.

No, I have never said anything that would justify such a claim. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. Assessments vary in quality and accuracy, but I have never said or implied that they don't take resources, location, view, etc. into account. You simply made that up and falsely attributed it to me because you can't address anything I have actually said.

Everyone is entitled to their rights to liberty, even if they have been forcibly removed without just compensation and made into landowners' private property. It doesn't matter how much B pays C for A's liberty right to access economic opportunity: C does not have and has never had any right to sell A's rights to B.

Yes, of course it does, as proved, repeat, PROVED by the historical fact that the indigenous peoples of the New World resisted even at the cost of their lives when landowners forcibly deprived them of their liberty to earn a living, eat and clothe themselves, etc. by appropriating formerly unowned land as their private property. It is also proved, repeat, PROVED by the fact of poverty, oppression, suffering, exploitation, starvation, despair and death inflicted on the working people whom the Enclosures forced off the commons where they had formerly earned their living.

Unless they own land, in which case they can just demand what they want in return for their permission to use the land.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again because you cannot address anything I have actually said. The natural liberty to use what nature provided for all, which is what everyone is owed, is not a living, housing, or shelter. It is a right.

I did, and had a very attractive job offer, but I was too old to get a work visa.

And that might be relevant to something someone has said, but it is not relevant to anything I have said.

You have not provided any facts, just false claims, as proved above, and it is your beliefs that are evil. Sometimes people who aren't evil have evil beliefs, or do evil things: Aristotle believed that slavery was rightful, and Jefferson owned slaves. I'm not saying you are in their league -- certainly not intellectually -- but I have never called you evil. You simply made that up.

Again, that is simply a bald fabrication on your part, as proved above.

No, that claim is also false. I have stated many times that Georgism is the philosophy of Henry George, especially his arguments for a proposed Single Tax on the unimproved value of land, while geoism is the view that every producer rightly owns the fruits of his labor, but no one can rightly own what no one's labor ever produced, like the earth (geo) and its solid surface (land).

No, that is just objectively false. It has worked brilliantly everywhere it has ever been tried, to the extent that it has been tried, and there is nothing that's going to change that.

 

Again, even those on minimum wage can 'afford' to live in expensive areas if they adapt their lifestyle to suit. There is no real way to measure affordability other than as a 'feeling'.

 

Sure - but it must be very strictly rationed according to need, (genuine need - not "I blew all my money on fast food and cigarettes") and there should be no preference catered to in terms of location. Anyone accessing public housing should be regularly policed for behaviours contrary to financial security, and if anyone turns down public housing based on location they should be excluded from access for life.

The bleeding hearts would say that's harsh, but only because they have a vested interest in protecting ****-ups, and zero interest in helping those in genuine need.

 

*yawn*
Repeating the same thing over and over again with no supporting links, articles or validation of a defunct theory from the 1800s wears thin quickly.

You've proven nothing, supported nothing, and are regurgitating blindly.

 

Such as by living in a van, or under a bridge...

Already refuted: median income vs median cost is a perfectly real way to measure it.

 

<yawn> I don't need links or articles to validate the facts that land is not a product of anyone's labor, its unimproved value comes from government, the community and nature, not its owner, and privately owning it inherently deprives others of their pre-existing liberty rights to use it. I am repeating the same facts because they refute the same repeated false claims you repeatedly make. And FYI, the theory is from the 1700s, not the 1800s, and is no more defunct than Newtonian mechanics, which is from the 1600s.

All three of those claims are bald falsehoods as you know very well, and as anyone reading this thread can confirm for themselves.

 

the government should stop making cigarettes artificially higher, that hurts the poor

 

And lung cancer, throat and oral cancer, emphysema, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, COPD, etc. somehow don't hurt the poor...? Taxing tobacco has been extremely effective in reducing smoking, including among the poor:

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21444

However, as the above scientific reference demonstrates, there is a strong relationship between smoking and mental illness; of course there is also a strong relationship between poverty and mental illness.

 

No, by jointly buying property with other family members. You know - the ordinary, traditional, and much more common way than 'living under a bridge'.

Still doesn't mean anything if it's predicated on only a single iteration of lifestyle culture. Lots of migrants (for example) manage to live in expensive cities via shared housing. Their median incomes could be quite low, but their housing doesn't reflect that - their habits and lifestyle do.

 

Only if they choose to smoke. Obviously, if you're poor you're not going to take up costly habits.

 

So, by acquiescing in the decades-long enslavement of one's whole family by landowners and/or mortgage lenders. Check.

Common, ordinary, traditional... like selling a daughter or two into slavery has been in many cultures....

You'll really say just anything to rationalize privilege and justify injustice, won't you?

 

Explain where the privilege lies in an extended family living like paupers for years to save money for a SHARED house, while earning minimum wages, and then continuing to live without the usual comforts and privacy of individual housing. Go ahead, I'll wait here.

 

The privilege is held by the landowner who gets to pocket the fruits of that extended family's labor in return for contributing nothing, and if they take out a mortgage from a bank, the bank that gets to pocket interest income in return for exercising its privilege of money issuance.

 

the government is artificially raising the prices, many poor people get simple pleasures in a smoke or beer - they can't afford trips to luxurious islands

smoking and drinking releases their stress, stress kills and causes health problems

 

Statistically, it is clear that any such stress relief, even if it is real, does less good than the harm done by drinking and smoking.

 

the longest person to have lived was a smoker... a title nonsmokers really would like to take (let us know when they do)

the fact is, smoking does relieve stress... excessive smoking can cause harm... just like excessive sun exposure

 

So in order to pretend that scrimping and struggling and going without is somehow a privilege, you had to create a very particular set of parameters. Wow, you REALLY need to be a victim dontcha. Ever considered that it's just you?

Because no one who knows what it takes for low income earners to buy property thinks it's all hookers & blow.

 

You're literally defending shitty choices (very expensive shitty choices - to both the individual and to society). Well done. Want to make murderers and rapists the good guys too? After all, it's just for 'stress relief' .. not their fault. Govt MADE them do it by not giving them heaps of free stuff.

 

If you can afford your own health care and don't have any family you need to stay alive for, then by all means .. kill yourself however you see fit. But if you're relying on the public purse, no dice. If you want expensive habits, pay for them yourself.

 

you're defending hurting the poor for no reason, what's next... the elderly

why would you support 100%, 200%, even 500% taxes on products?

I believe in freedom, you obviously believe in a nanny state

 

the longest person to have lived was a smoker, I know you want that to be a nonsmoker to help your hatred of people that smoke, but facts are facts

 

Huh?? What on earth do you even incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? The scrimping etc. is only necessary because OTHERS are privileged. That is kinda the point.

The parameters are pretty universal: Having to pay landowners for permission to work and scrimp, etc. to save up enough for a down payment on their privilege, and then paying banksters interest for exercising their privilege of money issuance.

No, because I understand why we are all victims of the massive, systematic, institutionalized injustice that is privilege. Some are just perpetrators as well as victims.

No idea what you are talking about. What's all hookers and blow?