[pyradius]

The problem isn’t vastly understated, and the retirees have largely been subsidized by the current system, they aren’t losing anything. That said, I’m just as favorable to a writedown of the asset and liability. The banks can now invest in productive enterprise.

Fred Foldvary also discusses the transition and who would ultimately need compensation in https://www.progress.org/articles/the-transition-to-land-val...

I see no evidence that it would be difficult in the slightest to disentangle such things but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise by those who have done an actual analysis of the issue.

Of course, as Foldvary notes, “First of all, compensation for the loss of land value is not morally required. The typical landowner has been receiving an implicit subsidy from the government, as public goods generate higher rent and land value. One could argue that justice requires the title holder to pay back the past subsidies.”

What you see as a problem is not an ethical or economic problem merely a potentially political problem.

[throwaway4aday]

> compensation for the loss of land value is not morally required. The typical landowner has been receiving an implicit subsidy from the government, as public goods generate higher rent and land value. One could argue that justice requires the title holder to pay back the past subsidies

This is an absurd standpoint. You're going to ask 64.8% of the population that own homes, a quarter of who are nearing retirement age, to pay back what for all intents and purposes is their retirement fund? If you want to talk about morals and ethics this is clearly an immoral position. Even if we consider the assumption that the increase in value of their property is some form of subsidy, they entered into this contract in good faith as a way to provide for themselves and their families as they age and eventually retire or are no longer able to do productive work from which they can earn a living. To strip them of this and say with a hand wave that they were in the wrong for thinking that a system of ownership, that has existed for hundreds of years and was generally agreed upon by the vast majority of society, would continue to exist and that they would benefit from by lawfully participating in it... I honestly can't imagine you or anyone saying this to someones face, it's just baffling. It's on par with demanding collectivization at the expense of landowners and it would probably have the same consequences.

[TimPC]

I disagree strongly with his fundamental premise. Even if you acknowledge and accept the full moral premise of Georgism you have to assess the degree to which people are morally culpable. Slavery was a heinous violation of human rights and choosing to participate in it justified heavy financial penalties from its abolishment. Participation in slavery was far from mandatory as evidenced by businesses in the north that competed with those in the south despite not having slaves.

The current real estate system on the other hand is a fundamentally different beast. Everyone who doesn’t want to be homeless has to participate as either a renter or purchaser. Years and years of government policy have made the former decision ill advised as the financial benefits to ownership are quite large. Despite this I’d agree with the proposal if all that was being done was the removal of a subsidy.

The government is not merely removing a subsidy in this case though. They are intentionally cratering the housing market. Years of government policy has encouraged over-participation in that market. For those who want to change things to argue the government is 0% morally culpable and the individuals are 100% morally culpable is disingenuous. His argument seems to be that the financial culpability follows from the moral culpability.

He even argues that individuals participating in a system owe backwards subsidies because the government did the morally wrong thing. This amounts to intentionally bankrupting most home owners, including depriving them of funds needed for retirement. This is done in a single sentence hand waving fashion without any sort of impact analysis.

I’d argue there is a substantial problem here that spans the ethical, economic and political categories. But you seem to believe the government is 0% culpable and the individuals responding to incentives are 100% culpable. I’d argue it seems more likely you don’t actually believe that just don’t want to pay for the costs of a fair transition.