[paul]

That assumes a fixed supply of housing, which is only true in deeply dysfunctional places like SF. In most of the US, housing cost is close to replacement cost, so if landlords try to raise rents, people can just move someplace cheaper, especially since they are no longer dependent on a job to support themselves.

[psc]

I think the GP is referring more specifically to Henry George Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem). The theorem has pretty solid theoretical backing, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to basic income. At the very least it's a good question to research.

My understanding is that all owners of would increase the rents/prices of their unimproved land, not just housing landlords. Everywhere you'd move is now more expensive by the same amount, because unimproved land is (mostly) fixed supply.

[paul]

"under certain conditions". There is an enormous amount of unimproved land in the world, and most of it is quite inexpensive.

I do like the idea of a land tax though, and believe that it's a good way to fund BI (along with carbon tax).

[senseless]

Exactly, Henry George is the most prominent theorist who pushed those ideas, and many more have used or expanded on them since.

[senseless]

No, it does not assume a fixed supply of housing. The law of rent revolves around the margin of productivity and already takes into account what you're trying to say.

The wages extractable from the least valuable land would rise by the same amount as anywhere else since basic income would affect everyone's incomes equally. Thus, there would be an excess over the basic level of sustenance and according to this law that excess MUST be swallowed up by rent. The status quo would resume for normal wage-earners, while land-owners would benefit even more than they already do, raising rates of inequality further.

[soared]

There are plenty of 'dysfunctional' places just like SF. Plenty of cities have limited area to expand into. For example, Boulder local gov owns a ring of land around the city, making it impossible to expand outwards (or upwards).

Housing supply isn't fixed if you think people are willing to live in Wyoming - which they pretty much aren't.

[AnthonyMouse]

"Horrible laws that cause everyone's disposable income to be swallowed by landlords" sounds like a problem worth solving, not an inevitable fact of life.

[undersuit]

Why aren't people willing to live in Wyoming?