I think a key to Singapore's success is its strong maintenance of public order. So much of "land value" is really "do well behaved people live here." In Singapore you know that no matter who your neighbors are things will be alright. In America we have a dangerous underclass and an awful lot of real estate speculation centers around who ends up with that hot potato. In America public housing has quickly collapsed into underclass housing, we couldn't run a Singapore type system.
I lived in Baltimore for a long time and Baltimore has insanely high property taxes, over twice what the surrounding county has. The high taxes mostly get squandered by the city government (no model of Singaporean competence). Meanwhile, there were huge issues with crime and underclass behavior. The result is that people left the city to settle in the county.
I'd say what Singapore has accomplished is a package deal. It didn't run a certain kind of property use scheme. It had a whole model of governance that made it work.
Increasing Land Value Taxes and reducing income, sales, property, and corporate taxes would make legal employment and a law-abiding existence so much more attractive than criminality that the crime problem would be reduced quite a bit. This would start a positive upward cycle, LVT leads to a better society, leading to more LVT, then to an even better society, etc.
Criminals are generally poor and pay little to nothing in taxes. Their earnings potential in legal employment is usually much higher than criminality, McDonalds employees make more then your average street dealer by a lot.
The issue is that working at McDs is lame and emasculating while trying to climb a violent tournament is fun if your a certain kind of dumb young man.
1) Will I get caught with higher probability X%?
2) How harsh and immediate will my punishment be if I get caught?
That plus incapacitation are literally the only meaningful drivers of criminal activity. The economic arguments are easily refuted excuses for criminals.
Really, people don't rob each other and sell drugs for money, but because they think it's fun to play a real-life version of GTA? Do you actually know any criminals? I've worked in prisons, many of them are the most bottom-line oriented people I've ever met. "I need to be earning," over and over, all day and every day, even in prison. There are a few exceptions, hardcore sadists and rapists, who are basically irredeemable and the schizophrenics and/or mentally disabled, who basically shouldn't be there in the first place.
I lived in Baltimore for over a decade. I got called up for jury duty every year. The criminals struck me as violent morons that committed violence at the drop of a hat over the dumbest shit.
There are many other sources with similar results.
Your average street dealer, who makes up the majority of the labor in the drug trade, makes minimum wage. The next level up would probably be just as well off climbing even a low level corporate ladder (manager at McDonalds, etc). There are a few drug kingpins at the very top that get rich, but it's a vanishingly small % and requires you to win a violent tournament. Of course, there is at least a chance of becoming "somebody". You aren't going to become "somebody" working retail.
The drug trade has a lot of variance, but on a probabilistic return sense its worse then legitimate work.
"I got called up for jury duty every year. The criminals struck me as violent morons that committed violence at the drop of a hat over the dumbest shit."
You got the ones who were not only not smart enough to not get caught but were also too dumb to take a plea deal, it's a self-selecting group of idiots but a small one given the ratio of plea bargains to trials.
Truly inspiring article pointing the way towards a system of land use management that works much better for all members of society. There intelligence and integrity of Lee Kuan Yew and his advisers shines forth.
Do you have any ideas of how a 'build to rent' model could benefit from this experience in Australia. I'm thinking that it would be beneficial to avoid subdivision but to enable homeowners to capture some of the increase in value of a house if they look after it. I would desire to exclude cars from the vicinity of dwellings, allow for work and home in a two story shophouse (old Singapore style) and include vehicle free common land in front of dwellings to allow kids to play safely and move throughout a village of say 2000 people. It's desirable to facilitate worker mobility, should they need to move to another district for employment purposes.
One of the big problems associated with urban sprawl in Australia, associated with housing that requires both partners to work, is its effect on children that shows up as indiscipline in schools. So, working from home and being able to secure most things that one needs locally, is an attractive proposition. And it might improve the birth rate.
Excellent read!
Wonderful article.
I think a key to Singapore's success is its strong maintenance of public order. So much of "land value" is really "do well behaved people live here." In Singapore you know that no matter who your neighbors are things will be alright. In America we have a dangerous underclass and an awful lot of real estate speculation centers around who ends up with that hot potato. In America public housing has quickly collapsed into underclass housing, we couldn't run a Singapore type system.
I lived in Baltimore for a long time and Baltimore has insanely high property taxes, over twice what the surrounding county has. The high taxes mostly get squandered by the city government (no model of Singaporean competence). Meanwhile, there were huge issues with crime and underclass behavior. The result is that people left the city to settle in the county.
I'd say what Singapore has accomplished is a package deal. It didn't run a certain kind of property use scheme. It had a whole model of governance that made it work.
Increasing Land Value Taxes and reducing income, sales, property, and corporate taxes would make legal employment and a law-abiding existence so much more attractive than criminality that the crime problem would be reduced quite a bit. This would start a positive upward cycle, LVT leads to a better society, leading to more LVT, then to an even better society, etc.
Criminals are generally poor and pay little to nothing in taxes. Their earnings potential in legal employment is usually much higher than criminality, McDonalds employees make more then your average street dealer by a lot.
The issue is that working at McDs is lame and emasculating while trying to climb a violent tournament is fun if your a certain kind of dumb young man.
1) Will I get caught with higher probability X%?
2) How harsh and immediate will my punishment be if I get caught?
That plus incapacitation are literally the only meaningful drivers of criminal activity. The economic arguments are easily refuted excuses for criminals.
Really, people don't rob each other and sell drugs for money, but because they think it's fun to play a real-life version of GTA? Do you actually know any criminals? I've worked in prisons, many of them are the most bottom-line oriented people I've ever met. "I need to be earning," over and over, all day and every day, even in prison. There are a few exceptions, hardcore sadists and rapists, who are basically irredeemable and the schizophrenics and/or mentally disabled, who basically shouldn't be there in the first place.
"Do you actually know any criminals?"
I lived in Baltimore for over a decade. I got called up for jury duty every year. The criminals struck me as violent morons that committed violence at the drop of a hat over the dumbest shit.
https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/5049.pdf
There are many other sources with similar results.
Your average street dealer, who makes up the majority of the labor in the drug trade, makes minimum wage. The next level up would probably be just as well off climbing even a low level corporate ladder (manager at McDonalds, etc). There are a few drug kingpins at the very top that get rich, but it's a vanishingly small % and requires you to win a violent tournament. Of course, there is at least a chance of becoming "somebody". You aren't going to become "somebody" working retail.
The drug trade has a lot of variance, but on a probabilistic return sense its worse then legitimate work.
"I got called up for jury duty every year. The criminals struck me as violent morons that committed violence at the drop of a hat over the dumbest shit."
You got the ones who were not only not smart enough to not get caught but were also too dumb to take a plea deal, it's a self-selecting group of idiots but a small one given the ratio of plea bargains to trials.
Truly inspiring article pointing the way towards a system of land use management that works much better for all members of society. There intelligence and integrity of Lee Kuan Yew and his advisers shines forth.
Do you have any ideas of how a 'build to rent' model could benefit from this experience in Australia. I'm thinking that it would be beneficial to avoid subdivision but to enable homeowners to capture some of the increase in value of a house if they look after it. I would desire to exclude cars from the vicinity of dwellings, allow for work and home in a two story shophouse (old Singapore style) and include vehicle free common land in front of dwellings to allow kids to play safely and move throughout a village of say 2000 people. It's desirable to facilitate worker mobility, should they need to move to another district for employment purposes.
One of the big problems associated with urban sprawl in Australia, associated with housing that requires both partners to work, is its effect on children that shows up as indiscipline in schools. So, working from home and being able to secure most things that one needs locally, is an attractive proposition. And it might improve the birth rate.