That would depend on if you view the land as yours completely and in all sovreignty. Or if you view it as a license for you to use exclusively until such time that society deems its worth it to take back or charge you for it. Should a few people be able to hold back economic development or relegate everyone born after them to living in the country? It's not a black and white issue when you ask the entirety of society to weigh in on it
I'm not talking about some abstract concept of "land".
I'm talking about _homes_. You know, where David took his first steps, or where the swing used to be in the garden, or whatever else.
I despise this abstraction, sorry. My grandmother's home in which she raised her family is not some abstract piece of "land" to be stolen from her because you think it meets some economic goal.
You know full well that this idea of future individuals being relegated to 'living in the country' is complete nonsense.
What you really mean is that everyone can't just pile in to the same ten or so 'alpha cities' and expect to just completely disregard those already living there.
Except that those _homes_ take up land which we are currently incapable of creating more of. It's great that your grandmother has a place with all those memories. Does that mean that everyone my age and younger is no longer allowed to live near their work, so that your grandma can reminisce when she looks around?
Thats the trade-off that is happening right now, when people can make a decision 40 years ago and get to control scarce resources from that point until they die.
>You know full well that this idea of future individuals being relegated to 'living in the country' is complete nonsense.
I don't think that's complete nonsense at all. I live in the Boston area and the majority of people I know making over 6 figures either have roommates or a 1+ hour commute.
Grandma living in a detached home on a quarter acre of land in the city means that 20+ people can not live near jobs because of the apartment building that is not there.
It is a perfectly valid opinion to think that this is an acceptable trade-off, but to act like the trade-off is not happening is just sticking your head in the sand.
Additionally a land value tax is not "stealing" the home from anyone. It's accepting that there are scarce resources and there needs to be a pressure to use them in the most efficient manner. If you can provide the value to keep your home on it's own, then fine you get to live there. If you can't you get to sell your highly valued home and reap the benefits of that value. That is capitalism at it's core. If Grandma thinks she should be protected from economic forces and isn't voting for socialist policies to give similar protections to others, then that's just pulling up the ladder after you which is not a viewpoint I'd give any consideration to when I vote
You can hide it behind fancy words but what you want to do is force existing residents who own their homes out in the name of 'economic growth'.
I don't have to agree with that.
> when people can make a decision 40 years ago and get to control scarce resources from that point until they die.
Yes, that's what buying something is. I don't want to live in a world in which everything is simply rented. We should be helping people get _out_ of that, not dragging them in to it.
What is want is for retirees to not be able to keep subsequent generations far away from the same opportunities they enjoyed when they were the same age and raising families. Economic growth is the lever I happen to think can accomplish this best. If you've got a personal issue with that idea, then I'd be just as fine with not allowing you to live within city limits once you retire/reach 65/some similar metric.
The older generation is strangling the subsequent ones, and their countries, because they refuse to change anything about their lives. This is forcing the younger generations to miss out on all the aspects of life that the older generations thought we're important and enjoyed in their youth.
When I hear a retire complain about proposed housing _and_ ask their 30 year old children why they haven't given them grandkids yet, all I can think is that brought that on themselves. They don't live on an island, and the choices they are making have downstream affects on everyone
