Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Land ownership is a fairly recent phenomenon and we got along just fine with out it.

Singapore uses this system today and is a capitalist powerhouse.

The desire to build generational wealth is natural. The enormous downstream consequences of allowing people to do that will eradicate all of the wealth anyway through violent upheaval or economic collapse. It’s happened dozens of times already, and it’ll happen again.



You can still own land in Singapore, they call it estate land I believe. The HDB homes are basically government owned housing that is leased back at a lower rate so the average family can afford it. The homes tend to lose value later in the lease term as it’s unclear what happens when the lease runs out (many are 99 year leases and some are 50+ years in already).

Not that different than low-income housing in SF that people purchase. The price is artificially low and appreciation (for the owner) is capped.


Yes there is some freehold land. The vast majority is 99 year leases, leased from the state. Rent goes back to public coffers.

Yes it’s unknown what the effects of lease expiry are, but that’s not relevant to the argument since LVT doesn’t affect leases/ownership.

The similarity is in how rent gets captured again by the community. Singapore does this, still capitalist. The US can do it, it’d still be capitalist.

HDB is analogous to low income housing, but neither of those are similar to leasehold or LVT ground rent capture.


Right. My point was the system is not really that unique. There is also land in the US and Canada that is leased from the state (national parks) or Indian reservations.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: