RE: Land Value Tax & Basic Income Already Exist, Just Not For Our Benefit
In reality, you probably already pay land value tax. Most of us pay a land value tax to a landlord in the form of rent or to a bank in the form of mortgage payments. This "tax" in the form of rent allows landlords and capitalists (mortgage holders) to survive and thrive without having to actually work for a living like the rest of us.
We don't live sitting in the middle of a field though, we live in a house or apartment generally. That dwelling is what we rent, we do not rent the land, not for living anyway. So we are paying for the facility that that dwelling provides per unit time of use.
It's true that the people who own the land and / or the dwelling on it often pay for it by shuffling around money which they have access to on credit based on their originally better starting position than the average person, I won't deny that. They do not fully own the dwelling, and the vast majority of the money comes from renters. The landlord in this case is effectively getting paid hugely in the form of a property at the end of the debt repayment, all for the risk of guaranteeing that debt, with or without the renter, which the will however inevitably have.
I think this is the more common case. In light of this would it not seem to be better for the renter to have some share in the property which they are financing?
Yes, basically...if I understand you correctly...but I think that's exactly what LVT+UBI does. Every person, including the tenant, is a partial owner of all land and receives part of the sum total of all rent.
Plus, something to consider, a rental agreement usually has rent higher than just the value of the land itself. I rented a place one time that had 800 dollar rent. A mortgage payment on the place would have been 400 dollars. (In most cases the landlord has a mortgage on it and uses part of the rent to pay the mortgage.) You're renting the land and the structure, as well as paying for maintenance (at least, landlords have obligations to make certain repairs in my country). The land value tax isn't taking all of that rent away, just part. The portion of cost that stems from land value is what is taxed, not the portion that stems from actual services (repairs) and products (structures) provided.
I think the proposal that you're suggesting seems somewhat like what Proudhon actually recommended, but I think LVT-UBI is a better approach insofar as land and natural resources ought to belong to everyone in my opinion. Your solution would only benefit the tenant and the landlord, not the neighbors or the community per se. ..and my land value is driven up when my neighbors make improvements on their property and when the municipality puts in schools and the state maintains the roads, etc. The value of the land, largely, results from other people's labor rather than from the efforts of the tenant or landlord exclusively.