OurToothbrush

I think you're getting the logic wrong, and the basic logic also isn't rooted in empirical studies.

Can you please cite empirical studies that make your case?

I could be wrong of course, but even if LVT plus UBI work it would still be better to just do what the CPC did and stop enforcing the right to own other people's homes.

Okay, no, youre operating off of faulty logic. Everyone is going to be jacking up their prices the same amount, because they all can and they all want to maintain income. They will move in a coordinated fashion to raise prices as they always have historically done, whether that coordination is merely born of the same interests or active conspiracy.

Also even within neoclassical logic demand would increase as people have more money, the supply would stay the same, so prices would equalize higher.

could cite tons of capitalist garbage in favor of renterism

Okay. Do it then.

Point is renting is a business, like any other.

It is literally distinct enough that we define the rentier class separately from the capitalist class

The business owner can fleece customers or treat them like humans. We choose to be the latter, we choose to treat our renters fairly and give them an excellent service, and if that’s too difficult for you to separate from your prejudice for that facet of capitalism I see no reason to waste further conversation on the subject.

Can you please seperate systemic critique from moralizing? The point isn't to call you a bad person, in the same way ecology isn't about calling mosquitos evil. You're frankly missing the point by being defensive and arguing "okay but some mosquitos don't carry malaria"

Okay, imagine a hypothetical. You're a landlord with 90 percent occupancy rate across 100 apartments. For simplicity let's say they all pay you 1000 dollars a month. With the lvt tax you pay 100 dollars a month per apartment. Your renters simultaneously get 90 dollars a month(let us assume that renters make up 50 percent of the population and slightly more than half of the tax comes from residential land, giving us 90 dollars)

You're going to raise rent by 90 dollars, at least. Maybe 111 dollars, to compensate for the empty apartments, if you want to continue making the same amount of money.

LVT doesn't really address the fundamental class antagonism between landlords and tenants.

Let's say landlords pay more taxes because of LVT, and that goes to UBI. Landlords can just jack up the prices to make their money back. The only people who benefit are people who don't rent.

Also geoanarchism doesn't sound like anarchism, unless we are being pejorative toward anarchism.

Well actually...

(I get your point though, it is very direct with landlordism)

It is more than my opinion, it is literally the academic concensus on the subject, including pro-capitalist economic theorists in the consensus. You'd literally have to go back to the divine right of kings being an intellectual position taken seriously to find a consensus in support of rentierism.

Now, of course, feel free to be an anti-intellectual about it. Your opinion as someone who hasn't read a lot of political economic theory is just as valid as the mainstream academic concensus among economicists and political economicists.

Yeah, youre a member of the rentier class, not the capitalist class.

The critique is actually different for rentierism vs capitalism, even most capitalist economicists hate rentierism. You're collectively a parasitic class even to the capitalists because you increase their operating costs indirectly for no benefit. Earnestly no offense, as class analysis is about understanding structures, not moralizing.

You still benefit from extractivist class dynamics. Unless you're going to be in the red even after selling the properties you own, even if you're charging so low that you lose money in the short term. But I'm guessing that on aggregate over time you're gaining money in the short term.

Why do you think any business does what it does?

Yeah, profit is legitimately a problem, this guy Adam Smith wrote about it in a book and then Marx wrote a whole series of tomes doing a more comprehensive analysis about how it is unsustainable and to the detriment of humanity.

Yeah, youre doing it out of the goodness of your heart and not to have a renter pay for you to own an appreciating asset. /s

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”

-Literally Adam Smith. I dont even need to get out the Mao quotes.

The problem isn't the scale the problem is the class dynamic.

They do, until they realize that their not going to get their land back, and then they'll sell their land for pennies to either the tenants or some investment company who can absorb the losses for much longer. Eventually the property will end up owned by the residents who will pay taxes assuming you can maintain power (you're basically set electorally, you're the group that did land reform, you just have to worry about capital strikes and coups, so you should probably do a hard purge(fire all the pigs, throw the ones in jail for illegal activities they'd previously have gotten away with) and reorganization of the local police and should invest in arming the local organized proletariat to dissuade that)(capital strikes can be prevented because dissolving the rent seeking class is beneficial to sectors of capital too) who will pay property taxes, as the property tax and maintenance costs are much lower than rent.

The tenants' money was paying the property taxes to begin with.