As someone who uses a USB equivalent to this piece of hardware (in my case, a Behringer UMC1820): having MIDI and audio inputs on the same interface is a nice convenience feature. Avoids needing to use up multiple ports on the host machine, and avoids a lot of the time synchronization issues that arise with trying to use multiple interfaces at once.
> If all landlords' costs go up (e.g. taxes) then all landlords will raise rents to maintain the same previously optimal profit margin they were extracting.
And then all landlords will see a surge in vacancies, and not all landlords are able to tolerate paying LVT on empty units for very long before they're forced to drop their rents back to the actual market value.
> why not raise taxes to $1M/sq.ft.? $1B/sq.ft.?
Same reason why landlords can't raise rents to $1M/sq.ft or $1B/sq.ft: because nobody in their right mind would pay that much.
At least I have some influence over my local government and how it spends my tax money. Same can't be said about my landlord and how it spends my rent money.
Responding to LVT in this way would require an unprecedented degree of collusion among landlords. That's unlikely to be sustainable, given that a lot of rental inventory is under smaller-scale landlords who will have a much harder time holding units vacant and therefore will be more eager to cave and drop rents back down to their actual market values.
Even if such a cartel could be sustainable (say, because the vast majority of rental units are under a couple of massive property management firms instead of thousands of smallhold landlords), it'd only “work” until people get sick of it and move to other cities, thus producing more vacancies, thus (under LVT) causing those landlords to hemorrhage more money.
Put differently: every landlord already knows every other landlord wants to maximize cash flow, so if landlords were actually capable of coordinating to the degree necessary to raise rents in response to LVT without bankrupting themselves, then why are they not doing that already? Why have they not yet all gotten together and decided “we're all going to charge infinity dollars per month per square foot”?
It's much easier to do things like pursue higher education or start a business when you don't have to worry that you'll be homeless if things don't pan out.
Because having more money than what's needed for basic subsistence is nice? Because it's something that interests you? Maybe you'd be one to lounge around doing nothing if you had UBI, but UBI studies so far have demonstrated that you'd be the exception rather than the norm.
The solution to this is to use that LVT revenue to fund UBI, such that the income from all that Disneyland-related land value offsets your own LVT burden.
In a mathematically-perfect setup (100% LVT going entirely to UBI, with zero overhead and zero other government expenditures), the break-even point where your LVT exactly equals your UBI would mean that you own your exact equal share of that tax jurisdiction's total land value; if you own more, then you pay for it, and if you own less, then you get paid for it. Obviously in the real world some of that LVT revenue has to go toward paying people to collect taxes / distribute income checks (not to mention the many other functions of a typical government), but the point is that LVT+UBI produces a self-balancing system that maximizes fairness even for people using their land “non-productively”.
> Georgism is not about scarcity, it's about economic land: inputs to production which are fixed in quantity, and that you can't make more of.
I think people get tripped up on this specifically because a growing demand for something with fixed/inelastic supply will naturally tend to cause that thing to become scarce given enough time, and it's that scarcity as applied to land that's making Georgism look more and more like a good idea.
reply