4 ms·

Even "rich people" don't like to take a 10% hit every year on their estate though. 2% is much less of a burden, especially in a bubbly market where the paper va

by Jacqued 10y ago

Even "rich people" don't like to take a 10% hit every year on their estate though. 2% is much less of a burden, especially in a bubbly market where the paper value rises by way more than that yearly. The vacant home issue is prevalent in nearly every large city in the world and it has a vast social cost. If you don't want to suppress it through tax (force them to live there, sell, or subsidize the locals by paying extortionate tax), another way would be facilitating squatting of empty property. When you do that, you actually have charities that specialize in "opening up" unoccupied spaces and setting them up for homeless people to live there. I actually like the way we do it in France where if you stay there for a couple of days you are legally an inhabitant so it takes up to a years worth of legal proceedings to expel you.

conanbatt 10y ago
> Even "rich people" don't like to take a 10% hit every year on their estate though. And nobody likes to get coerced into anything. There should be no policy with the intent to punish anyone, whether rich or poor. And it is not the rich that cause the housing problem, which is real and global. > The vacant home issue is prevalent in nearly every large city in the world and it has a vast social cost. If you don't want to suppress it through tax (force them to live there, sell, or subsidize the locals by paying extortionate tax), another way would be facilitating squatting of empty property. It is vastly different to see an inefficiency as a cost over seeing as a lost of potential gains. A property owner that does not rent his property is not costing anyone anything: only he is the loser of the potential gains of renting the property. It is a benefit for a renter when he rents it out, not a cost when he doesnt. If we start seeing potential gains and costs that have to be subsided, you will notice a very uneven application of such criteria. Should people be spending time for leisure? maybe we should force them to do charity. Not doing charity is a vast social cost! 10% tax on wages if you dont do charity! Any law that artificially lowers the value of property, for example by allowing squatting, or forcing taxes will lower both demand and supply. IF people buy less of those property, developers will build less, and often in the end you end up with less properties to begin with. Not only that, but forcing things on people have the funny side-effects of getting push back. If you allow squatting, you will now see empty buildings getting boarded up (you can see this in Buenos Aires very often). That is costly to the property owner, costly to the neighborhood by showing an eye-sore. >When you do that, you actually have charities that specialize in "opening up" unoccupied spaces and setting them up for homeless people to live there. I actually like the way we do it in France where if you stay there for a couple of days you are legally an inhabitant so it takes up to a years worth of legal proceedings to expel you. Thats terrible, a huge deterrent to buy property, and so, of building property. People always have the greatest ideas when it comes to doing things with other people's resources.
- Jacqued 10y ago
  Owning property and not using it _is_ indeed a vast social cost. What you're doing is forcibly depriving everyone else of the land (and not using it for anything). This is not a big deal where land is plentyful, and terrible when land is scarce. What you're saying is you should be able to do whatever you want with your property. I guess what I'm saying is that it is only your property because we who live here allow it to be, and uphold your ownership. If you're not using it responsibly - and leaving it empty is not using it responsibly - it's our right as a community to have you GTFO. And the softest way to do that is to tax you out. The only reason the property is valuable in the first place (and rising) is because we who live here patronize shops, organize things in the area, and make it a good place to live. So you're piggybacking on our efforts while depriving a real person from living here. Again, the right thing to do seems to get together and get rid of the parasite...

by Jacqued 10y ago

conanbatt 10y ago

> Even "rich people" don't like to take a 10% hit every year on their estate though. And nobody likes to get coerced into anything. There should be no policy with the intent to punish anyone, whether rich or poor. And it is not the rich that cause the housing problem, which is real and global. > The vacant home issue is prevalent in nearly every large city in the world and it has a vast social cost. If you don't want to suppress it through tax (force them to live there, sell, or subsidize the locals by paying extortionate tax), another way would be facilitating squatting of empty property. It is vastly different to see an inefficiency as a cost over seeing as a lost of potential gains. A property owner that does not rent his property is not costing anyone anything: only he is the loser of the potential gains of renting the property. It is a benefit for a renter when he rents it out, not a cost when he doesnt. If we start seeing potential gains and costs that have to be subsided, you will notice a very uneven application of such criteria. Should people be spending time for leisure? maybe we should force them to do charity. Not doing charity is a vast social cost! 10% tax on wages if you dont do charity! Any law that artificially lowers the value of property, for example by allowing squatting, or forcing taxes will lower both demand and supply. IF people buy less of those property, developers will build less, and often in the end you end up with less properties to begin with. Not only that, but forcing things on people have the funny side-effects of getting push back. If you allow squatting, you will now see empty buildings getting boarded up (you can see this in Buenos Aires very often). That is costly to the property owner, costly to the neighborhood by showing an eye-sore. >When you do that, you actually have charities that specialize in "opening up" unoccupied spaces and setting them up for homeless people to live there. I actually like the way we do it in France where if you stay there for a couple of days you are legally an inhabitant so it takes up to a years worth of legal proceedings to expel you. Thats terrible, a huge deterrent to buy property, and so, of building property. People always have the greatest ideas when it comes to doing things with other people's resources.

Jacqued 10y ago
Owning property and not using it _is_ indeed a vast social cost. What you're doing is forcibly depriving everyone else of the land (and not using it for anything). This is not a big deal where land is plentyful, and terrible when land is scarce. What you're saying is you should be able to do whatever you want with your property. I guess what I'm saying is that it is only your property because we who live here allow it to be, and uphold your ownership. If you're not using it responsibly - and leaving it empty is not using it responsibly - it's our right as a community to have you GTFO. And the softest way to do that is to tax you out. The only reason the property is valuable in the first place (and rising) is because we who live here patronize shops, organize things in the area, and make it a good place to live. So you're piggybacking on our efforts while depriving a real person from living here. Again, the right thing to do seems to get together and get rid of the parasite...