I'll give the standard reply here: this sounds mainly like a criticism of the current system. Are you specifically proposing some loophole in geoism that could be gamed in such a way to make things worse for the poor, beyond how things stand in the current system? Or is this more of a "things will end up badly for the poor no matter what we do" kind of sentiment? I can certainly understand that, but it isn't a good excuse for apathy.

It concentrates an important axis of power (setting prices on a rivalrous good) into the hands of the few. That is necessarily worse for the disenfranchised. I thought that was clear from my comment, I guess not.

My statement is not one of apathy, but a prediction of worse comparative outcomes with mechanistic backing.

Who are "the few" in this case?

Poor people don't own property, though. So how could it disenfranchise them?

In this case, I am saying that political disenfranchisement is the dominant reason for poverty, and how well meaning policies can wind putting in barriers poor people from owning property in the first place. I'm sure you can imagine how this closes the cycle.

Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?

> Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?

1. Don't assume

2. If you are poor, which do you think is easier? A higher initial capital expenditure? Or a higher upkeep cost?

It will reduce property prices, ceteris paribus. The only ambiguity is if the extent is such that it fully offsets the opposite impact of higher upkeep cost from the perspective of a poor person. I don't know the answer to that question, do you?

Another factor: it'll encourage apartment construction, which will increase housing supply, which should help poor people.

> 2. If you are poor, which do you think is easier? A higher initial capital expenditure? Or a higher upkeep cost?

Higher upkeep cost is the easier one. Many poor people have a steady an income, but no saved wealth. That's why there are many people able to pay 1800/mo for rent for years, and never able to buy their own home.

And this would make LVT the better option for a poor person, since it would turn "buying" a home into "renting" the land from the state, along with buying the building, which is obviously possible (as seen by the existence of poor renters).

> Many poor people have a steady an income

I see you've not been poor.

The relevant case is people who have no income, but have a substantial amount of wealth (enough to buy a home). I'm not sure how you can consider that poor.

No. if you are poor, it is a real dynamic to get modestly frequent, but unreliable bumps in income. Of course these days there is no incentive to save that because of inflation, but if that weren't as much of a problem, you could consider saving up to buy a home, but you ABSOLUTELY cannot count on those sorts of things to sustain a mortgage payment, or land taxes. Like I said, you don't understand. Please, do not ever be in a place where you are making policy.

I understand what you’re getting at a bit better now, but you still haven’t explained why the current situation, where one needs to save 20% for the down payment, and then pay a monthly mortgage payment, is better for the poor.

Where are these places where the buying prices of land is cheap, but the land tax would be high? The buying prices is simply the year rent divided by some discount rate, so typically, the buying price would 20x the yearly rent/tax. That’s a large amount to have to save up (assuming a mortgage is out, like you say).

This is a fully general refutation of ANY system, because rich people game every system, including and especially the current one. Why should the current one be favored?

The trick is to find a system that, despite attempts to game it, has an incentive structure that isn't already explicitly tilted in favor of the rich. Geoism is one such system.

I aver that it's more difficult for a rich person to game a decentralized system than a centralized one. A land tax necessarily concentrates an important axis of power into the hands of fewer people.