George vs. Tucker, Part II
This is how I am looking at it these days.
Ownership of land includes these five bundled rights:
5. economic rent
Mutualists don't believe these first four should be alienated so occupancy and use means that absentee land ownership is not allowed.
As a result since all land is now legally occupied but not physically occupied by the owner there would be a hell of a lot of land free to homestead - thus no economic rent at and beyond the margins...a minor problem.
Whereas georgists believe anyone of the four can be alienated and that creates a hell of a lot of economic rent - all of which violates the labor-based property rights of the excluded.
Georgist remedy - share the economic rent, don't change anything else as we all pay property tax and the land value is within the property value...just shift taxation off of capital and onto land values.
Mutualist remedy - require occupancy and use and don't worry about the little amounts of economic rent left over.
Shorter version: the Georgists believe if you collect economic rent, the problems of absentee ownership and political occupation of the land will take care of themselves; the Ingalls-Tucker school believes that if you base ownership on occupancy and use, the economic rent will (mostly) take care of itself.
In addition, running public services on a cost, or user-fee basis, will eliminate the huge portion of economic rent that is produced by externalities like subsidized infrastructure. And the economic decentralization that results from the cost principle will also (by the laws of simple geometry) reduce economic rent: the smaller the community, the more residential property will be within convenient distance of shopping and work, and vice versa.
real estate , property