Pure Rent should be Minimized? Debate

[JagerIV]

By pure* rent, I mean "profit based purely on ownership, rather than productive work".

Examples of such:

1) One is granted land, which one collects rent from, but does no management work for.

2) Collecting royalties from a work created by your now deceased father.

3) Benefiting from a trust which you do not manage or grow.

4) Collecting unearned income from government favorable treatment.

* "pure" could be read as some high percentage of the income comes from rent, rather than the individual's labor, even if some amount of work is required for management of the asset: for example, continuing to profit off a royalties from your fathers work may require occasional meeting to approve new uses of the property, or lawsuits to protect the property. Or, in the case of government rent seeking, lobbying may be an exstensive effort in order to secure subsidies and other benefits. However, the labor expended in both cases are not "productive" labor, and do not meaningfully contribute value in exchange for the costs imposed.

 

[Deleted member]

So, just to be clear, this is a debate about Georgism?

 

[JagerIV]

So, just to be clear, this is a debate about Georgism?

I don't really know what that is (I think its something about how land taxes are better than income taxes?) so no. Its about the question above, where you fall and why.

 

[Cherico]

By pure* rent, I mean "profit based purely on ownership, rather than productive work".

Examples of such:

1) One is granted land, which one collects rent from, but does no management work for.

2) Collecting royalties from a work created by your now deceased father.

3) Benefiting from a trust which you do not manage or grow.

4) Collecting unearned income from government favorable treatment.

* "pure" could be read as some high percentage of the income comes from rent, rather than the individual's labor, even if some amount of work is required for management of the asset: for example, continuing to profit off a royalties from your fathers work may require occasional meeting to approve new uses of the property, or lawsuits to protect the property. Or, in the case of government rent seeking, lobbying may be an exstensive effort in order to secure subsidies and other benefits. However, the labor expended in both cases are not "productive" labor, and do not meaningfully contribute value in exchange for the costs imposed.

Not all of these are created equal lets go over them one by one.

1. Bad idea rent controls and the like having bad results is one of the few things most economists agree on. If housing is an issue the better way to tackle it is to increase the supply of housing. This can be done by limiting barriors to entry, tax breaks, incentives and other ways but direct rent control fucks every one long term and only benifits a well connected few.

2. Royalities on scientific, artistic and other works have limits placed on them for a reason, Im not against reforming copy right law.

3. Those trust fund investments are used in the stock market and help a lot of firms grow, and we tax that income anyways. Its a non problem as far as Im concerned.

4. The worst problem, and the one that absolutely needs to be tackled this is essentally theift from a nations people.

 

[Nagaasha]

No, because property rights include the right to use property as a profit generating asset.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

That depends on what you are asking. Legally speaking, renting is (or should be) perfectly acceptable and most of the renter protection laws should be tossed into the trash as impermissible restrictions on freedom of association.

That being said, renting is (on its own) a straight expense. Individuals should be much more wary of renting than they are and actually figure out the true costs (both short and long term).

Generally, renting makes sense when (relative to other options) it results in the greatest growth in capital.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't really know what that is (I think its something about how land taxes are better than income taxes?) so no. Its about the question above, where you fall and why.

*gentle sigh* Georgism is what you are debating about. The Single Tax Movement (the Georgists) argued that rent-seeking deterred investment which generated growth, and so wanted a single tax on the unimproved value of land to force any landowner to invest in improving the land. It was founded in the idea that society should hold the unimproved value of land, or, to show a billboard from its height:

Georgism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The objective is to control distribution from the so-called "economic rent" of the natural monopolies, for example land in an urban area, or an ecological resource. I would encourage you to read it for the sake of this debate, as my discussion when I provide a follow-up post will be based heavily upon the arguments for and against Georgism.

 

[Lanmandragon]

1. It's my land if I want to rent it out I can.
2. It's my work if I want my kids to benefit they should.
3. See #2
4. More information needed.

 

[JagerIV]

Not all of these are created equal lets go over them one by one.

1. Bad idea rent controls and the like having bad results is one of the few things most economists agree on. If housing is an issue the better way to tackle it is to increase the supply of housing. This can be done by limiting barriors to entry, tax breaks, incentives and other ways but direct rent control fucks every one long term and only benifits a well connected few.

2. Royalities on scientific, artistic and other works have limits placed on them for a reason, Im not against reforming copy right law.

3. Those trust fund investments are used in the stock market and help a lot of firms grow, and we tax that income anyways. Its a non problem as far as Im concerned.

4. The worst problem, and the one that absolutely needs to be tackled this is essentally theift from a nations people.

I think your picturing the wrong kind of renting: think less "manager of a building", which obviously is not pure rent, but more fuedual lord.

2 speaks to an idea that pure rent should be limited, with the sense that, the more distant the creation of the work, the less someone is "deseving" of the fruits of it. This is sorta building on a lockian sense of property rights, where ones claim to property is in some way tied to your labor being applied to it.

 

[The Name of Love]

As someone who is sympathetic to both Georgist and Distributist ideas, I do have to support minimizing "pure rent" (as it were). Property ultimately stems from labor of mind and body, and the idea that people can coerce others to give them wealth that they do not earn through labor is sort of ridiculous.

 

[JagerIV]

As someone who is sympathetic to both Georgist and Distributist ideas, I do have to support minimizing "pure rent" (as it were). Property ultimately stems from labor of mind and body, and the idea that people can coerce others to give them wealth that they do not earn through labor is sort of ridiculous.

So, would this be supportive then of things like death/estate taxes? And other things to try and break up large concentrations of wealth once it reaches some level where it becomes "unearned?"

 

[The Name of Love]

So, would this be supportive then of things like death/estate taxes? And other things to try and break up large concentrations of wealth once it reaches some level where it becomes "unearned?"

No, inheritance is earned if it came from stored labor. If it came from usury or pure rent, it's free game to tax.

 

[Deleted member]

No, inheritance is earned if it came from stored labor. If it came from usury or pure rent, it's free game to tax.

I think the problem comes with decoupling one use of money from another, which is mentally hard in the modern world because so much propaganda has been invested in mentally thinking about money as innocent, rather than a moral object with its own implications on society depending on how it is used.

 

[The Name of Love]

I think the problem comes with decoupling one use of money from another, which is mentally hard in the modern world because so much propaganda has been invested in mentally thinking about money as innocent, rather than a moral object with its own implications on society depending on how it is used.

Well part of that problem is the nature of globalism. Globalist economics means that pretty much all of the products I enjoy are made by wage slaves in the third world and financed by usury and rent seeking, and I can't do a damned thing about it. The best one can do is minimize consumer spending, which is what you should be doing regardless.

 

[Deleted member]

Well part of that problem is the nature of globalism. Globalist economics means that pretty much all of the products I enjoy are made by wage slaves in the third world and financed by usury and rent seeking, and I can't do a damned thing about it. The best one can do is minimize consumer spending, which is what you should be doing regardless.

You are quite correct. Of course, higher-end products are often still produced in Europe legitimately, so if you must buy something new... But the added cost really focuses you on what you actually need and what actually matters. I still shop at Goodwill and other thrift stores despite my income because I simply don't want to be involved in the commercialist system.

 

[The Name of Love]

You are quite correct. Of course, higher-end products are often still produced in Europe legitimately, so if you must buy something new... But the added cost really focuses you on what you actually need and what actually matters. I still shop at Goodwill and other thrift stores despite my income because I simply don't want to be involved in the commercialist system.

We are all part of the commercialist system though. I just want to help small businesses that I know I can trust.