In the last place I rented (London), the private landlords were unlikely to own the land. Fixed term leasehold was overwhelming common, not freehold.
But to make LVT simpler to understand (and economically equivalent): you can imagine the government owns all the land, and rents out plots for eg 20 years at a time to the highest bidder. To help people plan better, the auctions can be done 5 years ahead of time. So leases for 2036 - 2056 will be auctioned off in 2031.
You can stagger the auctions, so a few leases get auctioned off every week.
Or are you proposing State confiscation and management of the land? I can’t quite tell from your post.
For example, you could do more or less the same thing that the UK did to abolish slavery: buy out all the existing land owners / lease holders.
I suggested 20 years as a reasonable time frame for leases. In principle, 100 years might would also work. 999 years is probably far too long.
Now, instead of auctioning off the leases, you can also have individuals officially owning the land, but instead you tax them a certain fraction of the market value of the land every year. Economically that's equivalent.
A 999 year lease is basically economically the same as owning the land. So you should more or less treat it the same.
No. The high inflation was a result of Fed policy, not fiscal tricks like furlough payments.
> Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.
You are right that UBI can lead to higher relative prices for rent.
And that's why you would want to pair UBI with land value taxes, not rent control.
(UBI would not lead to inflation, and would not necessarily lead to higher absolute rents. The overall level of inflation is something an inflation targeting central bank, like the Fed or ECB, controls.)