Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person.

[steelhouse]

Read all of the responses, amazing how threads warp.  George wanted a large property tax going to the city.  I think he made a major mistake, he assumed money going to the city was like money going to people it is not.  He does not realize the city unions retire at 40 and collect $100K pensions with Cadillac insurance.  His system you still are paying $5000-410,000 to the city every year.

My tweak, average land rent, in the average city and average lot $0 is going to the city.  You only pay the city for the sewer water parks libraries that you want to use.  They can't force you to pay for them.  They can't tell you what color to paint your house, what size to make your house.   You don't even need a house.  You don't need a permit to build a house.

If you decide to give the beach or farm up for the desert, you can actually collect a check to use substandard land.  So you work in Silicon Valley.  You won't have the rent seekers trying to tap into your wages.  You pay $0 rent there.  You pay for house not rent.

Imagine if you make $50,000 a year and you don't pay $2,000 monthly rent.

[myrkul]

As I said, your plan is marginally better. But it has the same flaw of all redistributive systems:

It punishes efficiency, and rewards waste.

[Anon136]

Nope, no crime. Dick move, maybe, but not a crime.

No positive obligation may be imposed upon another person against their will.

That's libertarianism 101. You're not - nor can you be, under any libertarian code of law - legally obligated to act on behalf of another.

well that does make your definitions consistent ill give you that.

[steelhouse]

As I said, your plan is marginally better. But it has the same flaw of all redistributive systems:

It punishes efficiency, and rewards waste.

I think you are mistaken.  Today to rent farmland costs over $250 an acre.  Under this system the farmer that actually does all the farming would see their rents go down.  Maybe $100 per acre.  Thus, the farmer will receive more profit from farming the land and overall the productivity of the United States farmland rises.  It rewards efficiency since land rents don't go to the landowners.  The most efficient farmers will win bids.

There is no redistribution, it says land is free like air and owned by the people of the USA.  If you use more, you pay more.  The current land laws of the United States offers dual ownership, the land is owned by the States and private property.  The States get their share in property tax.  The reason why States want you to build big houses as they cost more and they can charge higher property tax. 

[myrkul]

As I said, your plan is marginally better. But it has the same flaw of all redistributive systems:

It punishes efficiency, and rewards waste.

I think you are mistaken.  Today to rent farmland costs over $250 an acre.  Under this system the farmer that actually does all the farming would see their rents go down.  Maybe $100 per acre.  Thus, the farmer will receive more profit from farming the land and overall the productivity of the United States farmland rises.  It rewards efficiency since land rents don't go to the landowners.  The most efficient farmers will win bids.

There is no redistribution, it says land is free like air and owned by the people of the USA.  If you use more, you pay more.  The current land laws of the United States offers dual ownership, the land is owned by the States and private property.  The States get their share in property tax.  The reason why States want you to build big houses as they cost more and they can charge higher property tax. 

Redistribution:

Economics . the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.

Or, in your case, paying people for using shit land, and punishing them for using valuable land.