[xvedejas]

Even if you don't rent out your residence (you live there), you're still collecting implicit rent. It's the value you would have been paying to be a renter, society loses because you exclude others from your residence. And every residence has to be owned by someone. You cannot escape rent seeking unless you're homeless or live in a jurisdiction with a "Land Value Tax".

[rwnspace]

That's an incredibly thin argument (society loses because you don't let someone pay rent to live in your home). You have to deny the existence of second-order intangibles which seed first-order tangible economic value such as community and social cohesion. If you like, ownership-based behavioural incentives. A 'stake in society'.

[xvedejas]

You misunderstand my argument entirely. The problem isn't that society loses because you don't let someone pay rent in your home. Society loses because you don't let someone else live in your home for free, but you do let yourself do that. This is the value you extract from owning the land, which nobody else can extract.

[rwnspace]

Apologies, I misunderstood your exact meaning. But I think you misunderstood my point that 'society loses' is a non-sequitur in any case.

[Retra]

Who lives in their home for free? I didn't know that was possible. Children maybe.