The diagram shows how price goes up and less consumers are able to access goods when you raise taxes within a market economy.
It is also an econ 101 level oversimplification, but it is arguing against your claims.
I've taken econ 101. It seems like you've only taken econ 101. I know of no serious academic that argues that lvt has no price distortions, only that lvt has lower price distortions than other modes of taxation.
What economics education do you have? I've spent years studying neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist economics. (Well, more than a decade on marxist economics, I've even read translated Vietnamese and Chinese texts on it) I am confident in saying that the assumptions you are relying on is faulty on theoretical bounds within neoclassical economics (which is where your argument is coming from) as well as within Marxist economics. But theory only goes so far, and if you have empirical evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
I think it is probably useful rhetorically and in analysis to differentiate between landlording as owning property and doing maintenance as doing a job even if one person is doing both
Not to be pedantic, but you did write just the broader enforcement of property rights and not private property rights, and I approached it from that broader perspective.
In fairness I did say "like the cpc did" which implied the distinction between personal and private property, but Im glad we've cleared up the source of misunderstanding.
The concern is that under this ideal scenario, what happens if you leave you house for a longer term? How does this take temporary moving into account? Examples: I get temporarily transferred for a year to a new city by my job and I fully intend to return to my home after this assignment. Rental homes/apartments aren’t a thing, so I must either buy a dwelling there for a year, or stay in a hotel for a year. If I buy a dwelling, I now own two properties as long as I can afford to pay both mortgages. More likely, I am forced to sell my long term home because I cannot rent it out for that year I am gone. If I do keep it, can I own two separate pieces of personal property or does one become private property because it is not in habitation? I have deprived someone of buying one of them by owning both, and ownership of empty dwellings is usually complained about just as much as renting them. Will my personal property rights be enforced on my vacant home for that year? Should the government allow someone to move in and use my house for that year without my permission or compensation, and only resume enforcing my rights when I move back in? Am I forced to sell and hope that I can rebuy my home when I return? A similar dwelling in an adjacent area may not factor against the sentimental value of a family or generational home. Are any of these parts different if I become temporarily disabled and move in to another person’s home for care. What about a year in the hospital or rehabilitation facility? I don’t think any of these concerns are all that absurd, even if they would affect a small percentage of the population.
This is entirely contextual. If there is enough housing for people to do it at the rate they're doing it then sure, own two properties at once if they are for personal use. If there is not enough housing then let someone who is going to be there for a year use it. You could also create rights to first usage in the case of letting someone (an exchange student for example) use a residence for a period of time while you retain long term usage rights.
But also, historically speaking, the communists aren't coming after your toothbrush. This stuff is a drop in the bucket and they don't care.
Also why would you still be paying a mortgage in this system? The idea is decommodified housing. Housing is assigned based on needs, not currency.
which is another reason to view it at a somewhat extreme angle.
You could view private property as an extreme angle that has been normalized. The idea of private property rights is the bedrock of capitalism, which is rapidly committing ecocide on the one planet humans are able to access.
Why would anyone pay property tax if property rights stop being enforced?
Monopoly of violence, same as always. I also said stop enforcing private property rights. Personal property is distinct.
A home doesn't stop being your personal property when you leave it for work, don't be absurd.
You must be conscious about how much of a stretch that rhetoric is, right?
Oh, looking back you were objecting to "being a landlord isn't a job it is an investment"
We've had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying "but if can also be a job" and if you want to analyze social relations I'd argue that it'd be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?
Something can be both an investment and a job. I do not know why you were saying "it is a job not an investment" originally.
You're just not getting like, a basic political economy concept.
Regardless of whether the investor also does the job of maintaining the property, the property they invested in is an investment. Investments always require some sort of work on someone's part.
Also you were the one gatekeeping the word investment
These are the people telling you eco-communism would never work
It is always an investment that requires work to be put into it, but you doing the work isn't an inherent component, you can always pay someone to do it for you.
Just rephrasing what you said in a way I think you'd agree with to repeat the point that it is always an investment.
unless we’re going to get into the weeds over some sort of pointless discussion of property ownership being horrible in general (which I tend to agree with). I shouldn’t have to explain that.
That is literally my central argument.
I'm gonna have to point out that I've repeatedly said some variation of "this isn't about landlords being evil, this is about the system that creates landlords being harmful" and you've continued to take it as a personal attack, over and over again.
The response to
"this isn't about landlords being evil, this is about the system that creates landlords"
Really shouldn't be
"but I'm not a bad landlord! Not all landlords are slumlords"
Don't sweat it to much, you are arguing against someone with an anti-education on how economics actually works to the point you can intuit how they're wrong without knowing any of the theory behind their argument.