In the aftermath of the (still ongoing) genocide of whites by the land barons, we have this report from the Los Angeles Times euphemistically titled: “Rich, Poor Live Poles Apart in L.A. as Middle Class Keeps Shrinking”:

Demographers at Wayne State University in Detroit recently found Greater Los Angeles to be the most economically segregated region in the country. The study found only about 28% of its neighborhoods to be middle-class or mixedincome, compared with more than half of those in Nashville, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Portland, Ore.

More than two-thirds of L.A.-area residents live in neighborhoods that are solidly rich or poor, according to the analysis, which is based on 2000 census data. That share has been steadily growing for three decades, said one of the study’s authors, George Galster, a professor of urban affairs at Wayne State…

The trend parallels a well-documented loss of middleincome jobs in the United States over a generation. But the study found that middle-class neighborhoods are disappearing at a much faster rate than the comparable jobs.

The remedies recommended by those the article quotes would be laughable if the situation weren’t so disasterous…

The remedies?  (Those with a weak stomach better have a barf bag at hand):

Dreier and Galster said government intervention is needed to reverse the trend.

In metropolitan regions that are continuing to grow, such as Los Angeles, they advocated a requirement that developers build a mix of housing, including affordable units for low-income residents.

Known as “inclusionary” housing, that tool has been adopted by dozens of California cities. But in Los Angeles it has been successfully opposed by business groups that have argued it would discourage developers from building in the city at all.

As an alternative, Los Angeles City Council members this month endorsed a proposal to ask voters to approve a $1-billion housing bond, to be financed through future property taxes.

The proposed measure, backed by business leaders and housing advocates alike, probably will appear on the November ballot. The money would be used to build a range of housing, including low-rent apartments, as well as to subsidize home loans for teachers, police officers and other essential workers.

So the Los Angeles land barons need servants quarters, paid for by taxpayers who can’t afford tax accountants to find tax loopholes for them—the middle class—built nearby the mansions so the third world servants can be called up at a moment’s notice and not need to be paid enough for a car.

This kind of “inclusionary housing” sounds like just what the baronage ordered.

I have an alternate proposal*:

Replace other taxes with single tax on land value—a tax Milton Friedman has quietly admitted** would have the least distorting effect—with the only exemption, for each head of house, being the median value of a lot for a single family home.  Many of the land barons would bitch about this double taxing their land investments and under more ordinary circumstances I might be sympathetic and say to tax only the subsequent increases in land value.  But given that they’ve profited from the genocide against whites, I’m being quite merciful in this proposal.  Unless they were proposing something like a land value tax circa 1980 and doing so with as much energy as they were extracting from the reproductive potential of the white population—they’re already living on borrowed time.

*Another, better proposal, is a generalization of the concept of economic rent via the net present value calculation being based upon the risk-free interest rate.  But in the present discussion I’m focusing on a step in the right direction which is the more traditional conceptualization of economic rent as deriving from land value.

**“In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.” Human Events, November 18, 1978, p. 14; see also the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics, New York: Warner Books, 1993.