You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Our playing fields aren't level but can be more level with universal basic income

There is not Land Value in a location that is simply used to store your body.
LVT simply becomes another rent that everyone pays.

And you missed something VERY HUGE!

Where does the UBI come from? It comes from the people working. UBI in every single form comes from the people who are making things.

So, if we decide that everyone should have minimum shelter, than it should be provided as overall cost minimized as possible.

Lets say it costs a builder $10,000 to build a tiny home.

Lets say that rent for a tiny place is $400 per month.
That's $4,800 per year.
That's $48,000 per decade.
That's $288,000 per average person's life.

So, if you had to pay this amount out of your pocket, would you prefer to pay $10,000 or $288,000?

And remember this, it is govern-cement that is not allowing people like me to make tiny homes for homeless people.

Sort:  

"Where does the UBI come from? It comes from the people working."

Not at all. The Land is characterized specifically by being NOT Labor.

The universal income comes specifically from the Land, fees on its exclusive use that benefit some lucky and sometimes also commited individuals.

Some estimate land value to be responsible for 60% of the GDP of the US, so there's definitely something to work with.

And I'd say that we owe it to each other to better distribute it, for the benefit of everyone.

"There is not Land Value in a location that is simply used to store your body."

Depends on where it is stored... The Land Value of physical land is simply the price you'd have to pay to purchase an empty plot of Land in e.g. New York, it varies greatly by location, and it is not created by the work of the owner, but rather by demand for the Land.

Free advertisement and added value from the network effect, as well as cost savings due to Economies of Scale are both the Land, and they both deliver unearned returns to whoever happens to own undertakings that customers already know about or use, for a reason or another.

It's time to take the Land seriously. It doesn't just run away, it cannot hide under a rock, it's simply in plain sight, it can be found nearby what your average person wants/needs to use or enjoys. It really is a very simple concept. If you have plenty customers, you enjoy the Land and let it work for you for additional advantages that you did not create, that work against everyone else who'd seek to use the Land you use directly, or who seek to sell their labor the way you do. If your work isn't very popular, you might not be using a lot of Land in the economic sense, by the way.

Loading...

"And remember this, it is govern-cement that is not allowing people like me to make tiny homes for homeless people."

Government regulation needs to be democratically legitimated. It often isn't, today, to your endeavour's disadvantage. The universal income is one proposal to restore some level of political sovereignty of the individual, to more enable people to form associations and organize around political demands or community organization beyond that. If you've heard of charles murray, he wrote a book focusing on that aspect of the universal income, I recently came across a summary of it here

The review of the book In Our Hands is awful.
It is all, obviously this author didn't think this, which is obvious, of course... etc.

UBI doesn't restore any political sovereignty.
I do not see how you make any connections between the two.
Either you have some weird fairy-tale like view of what happens in politics, or you think that if more people had more money, they could spend it on campaigns. Neither work.

The problem with govern-cement is that they want a permanent poor and permanent homeless class.

UBI implemented through such a govern-cement would result in controlled manipulation of everyone. Post anything bad about the govern-cement on F-c-book, have your UBI cancelled. (or just delayed, lowered, routing error...)

Anyway, my main point is that providing the house is much much much cheaper than paying someone to rent the house. And since we would be taking from the efficient, driven people to do this, we should make the costs as minimal as possible.

$288,000 vs $10,000

Further, if the cities would allow such tiny homes for homeless, I could get the whole thing donated. Donated construction worker time. Donated materials from the actual lumber mills.

$288,000 vs $1,000

Loading...

Probably worthwhile to watch Murray talk for himself about the topic.
While he seemingly has no awareness or appreciation for the topic of Land, he makes some good points outside of that at least!