4 ms·
As long as people are living in them, what does it matter where the owner lives? I'd agree with you if they're leaving them empty, waiting to sell again, and pe
by Asbostos 11y ago
As long as people are living in them, what does it matter where the owner lives? I'd agree with you if they're leaving them empty, waiting to sell again, and perhaps some investors are. But otherwise it's a way to allocate houses to people who want them the most (as shown by how much they're willing to pay).
I agree that allowing low cost, high density housing would be great in many cities. But the people living there don't generally agree, and they have more power. If we're stuck with a finite supply of property, then market prices are a reasonable way of allocating that to people.
As I mentioned, without high rents, how else would houses be allocated to residents? More people will want them than can get them. Would you prefer a waiting list? Or only allow ownership transfer by inheritance - excluding newcomers entirely?
- jacalata 11y agoIn London specifically, a significant percentage of foreign investors are absolutely leaving the houses empty. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/25/its-like-a-ghost-town-lights-go-out-as-foreign-owners-desert-london-homes http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/25/its-like-a-gh...
- eru 11y agoSee http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... for how to combat that (and raise a ton of revenue without market distortion).
- crdoconnor 11y ago>As long as people are living in them, what does it matter where the owner lives? I am personally not a fan of paying 40% of my income as taxes to Russian oligarchs. When property taxes are lower than the value of the land (and in London they are virtually nil), you effectively have a privatized land tax. The proceeds of those taxes tend to fund kleptocratic billionaires.