> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service.

Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident and extract, at best, a middleman's fee.

Some landlords also provide access to services such as repair, cleaning, etc and combine those fees with the rent, but there is no reason those could not be equally available to owner-residents without the landlord acting as a middleman, and there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services.

> there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services.

I get what you're saying, but it reads like sophistry. Yes, _technically_, a landlord, can delegate all services. In practice, there's no single "tenant" who would do anything remotely capital-intensive, like fixing a roof. They just up-and-leave.

> owner-residents

It's called home-ownership. It's expensive for a reason, and the fact that parts of the housing stock are for rent, and there's a middle-man, is not it.

> the landlord acting as a middleman

Many people do not have the wherewithal and look for a middleman. Young, seniors, people on the move, rich people who have no emotional attachment to a house, ...

The fact that Blackrock owns single family homes is due to an unfortunate combination of zoning, tax-structure, job concentration, ... creating the unique conditions that makes single family homes an attractive investment. Not because there's inherently something "extractive" about landlording.

(I guess, in core Adam Smith terms, there is a case, the way he frames "rent" as distinct from capital and labor, but it's a theoretical framework, and much of it still stemmed from the feudal legacy in Europe, where landlords had divine and aristocratic rights to family property. And in any case, it's not the same as "rent", the check Americans write every month, which usually has a large labor component).

I find speculation much more parasitic, and it's precisely that which land tax tries to address.

> Yes, _technically_, a landlord, can delegate all services. In practice, there's no single "tenant" who would do anything remotely capital-intensive, like fixing a roof.

That's missing the point.

Removing landlords from the equation removes neither the need for such services, nor the ability to provide them collectively, for the (admittedly more common) case of apartment buildings and other dense living spaces.

Thus, providing those services is not inherent to being a landlord, and making changes to our regulations, laws, or tax structure that effectively removes landlording as an economically viable option would not stop those services from being provided.

Furthermore, I'm sure pretty much everyone has heard (whether first-, second-, or third-hand) stories of landlords who do not meaningfully provide these services: apartment buildings where maintenance just doesn't happen, where the pipes leak and the roof drips and plugging something into an outlet carries a constant risk of electric shock. Landlords who only care about the inherently extractive rent they get.

> Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident

Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? When I lived in Baltimore you can be damn sure I didn't want to own anything in that city. There are valid reasons for renting to exist, landlords do provide valuable services, and there are people who do want landlords and renting to exist. It's okay to say you personally don't like landlords without making it seem like they're some kind of demons

> Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property?

Actually, I don't. I know that there are people who would prefer not to.

But because of the way the system is set up, it is so trivial and common for landlords to be extremely abusive. I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead—but actually have that option, because what would have been set up as rental properties are instead genuinely low-cost housing for purchase—than see the system continue as it is now.

I also know it's very unlikely that the status quo is going anywhere, so this is almost entirely a theoretical discussion.

> I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead

This would make things even worse. Imagine having to go through the whole house buying process every time you want to move. What are young people or poor supposed to do, live with their parents until they can hopefully afford a house? What if someone just can't afford a house?

> It's okay to say you personally don't like landlords

See, it's actually precisely the opposite: I don't hate people personally for owning and renting homes, I dislike the system for being broken and allowing such parasitical inefficiencies. "Hate the game not the player" etcetera

Exactly. To put it simply, rent charged = services sendered + economic rent. This is trivially evidenced by the fact that the landlord can outsource every service he "provides" and still turn up a profit; this amount is the economic rent on capital.

> can outsource every service he "provides" and still turn up a profit

the outsourcing might increase efficiency of provision of the services due to economies of scale.

This efficiency gain is then reflected as the profit.

> property that could be owned outright by the resident

So why don't the residents do it? Ownership requires capital, which presumably the residents don't have access to.

So the landlord is providing the capital required for the building's initial investment, just shifted across time. They don't necessarily have to be there at the inception of the building's initial investment phase, but they are party to the entire chain of transaction, and is necessary for the initial owner's exit out of this investment.

If the landlord would not buy at _this_ price, the initial owner of the land/building may not have had the risk appetite to build the building in the first place.

The landlord also takes on the risk and reward, to be fair of the property declining in value. If housing prices crash (which can and does happen) the renter has nothing to do but find a cheaper rental; the landlord may be wiped out.

People ignore the risks, but they are real and they will return.

Oh but it is the case, for instance buy-to-let loans are a big thing in the UK from a few years back till now.

Thanks, I'll look into it!

> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service.

And tapeworms are attractively slimming!

The colloquial use of the term 'landlord' equivocates between the role of property manager and the role of titleholder. The latter is the only one that really deserves the feudal term. Property managers do indeed earn their living. They are often just contracted by titleholders. Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do.

If the same person serves both roles then they are wearing two hats. Just as if someone were a stockholder and an employee of the same company.

if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital.

> Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do.

their role is to provide capital to purchase the title. And in the future, some other capital holder will buy the title off you.

This whole process is what enables investment in the land in the first place. It's the same idea as shareholders buying shares off other shareholders. These "secondary" buyers don't directly contribute to the company (analogous to the land), but their role is necessary to distribute the risk of investment across time. High risk takers buy the IPO, and lower risk takers buy after the company has proven to be successful.

This isn't any different from land holding. High risk buyers would buy new land (offered by the crown/gov't), and perhaps develop it (or not, if they want to take on a loss since undeveloped land is money-losing). But once the land is proven valuable - e.g., the city is expanding into this new land now - the value grows, and they can sell to a different title holder who want more certainty of the value of the land.

> if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital.

Is anyone in this discussion against title-holding per se? Not that I can see. The point is that title-holding should come with some responsibilities, specifically to pay a tax proportional to the value of the title. For comparison, someone is not necessarily against work because they believes that earning income comes with responsibility to pay taxes proportional to that income.

> pay a tax proportional to the value of the title.

Would you also agree then, that holding onto shares of a company would also require you to pay a proportion of the value of those shares in tax? In other words, this is a wealth tax?

What I agree with is of little consequence, because I'm not proposing this form of taxation[1]. But, interpreting LVT proponents, I believe they would say no, it's not a wealth tax, it's very specifically a land tax. I believe the point is to replace (all?) other forms of taxation.

[1] although I'm optimistic about it and might become a proponent in the future if it seems like an effective policy.