3 ms·

>I'm confused - how is 'hurt people who own property' the same as 'help people who do not'? Partly by helping reduce the systemic wealth transfer between prope

>I'm confused - how is 'hurt people who own property' the same as 'help people who do not'? Partly by helping reduce the systemic wealth transfer between property owners and non-property owners that is more colloquially known as "rent" and "asset price appreciation". >Similarly, eliminating the solar deduction hurts folks with solar panels, not quite the same as helping oligarchs. Things that make carbon based electricity generation more competitive and build in reliance upon the electric grid help the owners of those things. Do you not agree?

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Partly by helping reduce the systemic wealth transfer between property owners and non-property owners that is more colloquially known as "rent". This works the opposite of the way most people think it does. Anything that makes property more expensive increases rents, because it discourages the creation of new housing, which keeps housing scarce and rents high, and prices more people out of self-ownership. The big caveat here being the abominable subsidies for loan interest, because they encourage people to bid up the price of land, which makes buying and creating housing more expensive rather than less, with the balance of the money going to the banks.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  "Anything that makes property more expensive increases rents, because it discourages the creation of new housing" Increasing council tax discourages land hoarding which would actually free up more land for the creation of new housing. The supply of housing in the UK is not limited by how much builders want to build. It is limited by availability of land. Moreover, if coupled with heavy investment in council housing (the only thing in the past that has actually ever meaningfully added supply to the market), that would bring down rents a lot.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Taxing land and using the money to subsidize housing construction has the potential to work, but you're probably better off with land value tax (or some entirely unrelated tax) than council tax in that context. The problem with council tax is that if you do the desired thing and build new housing, your taxes go up because now you have more property. You also don't really need the government to operate the buildings. Build them and sell them for cost, or just make it a tax deduction to do construction that increases the number of housing units on a lot. As long as it gets built it doesn't much matter who owns it, and then you don't have the local government in the property maintenance business for no real benefit.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> Partly by helping reduce the systemic wealth transfer between property owners and non-property owners that is more colloquially known as "rent". This works the opposite of the way most people think it does. Anything that makes property more expensive increases rents, because it discourages the creation of new housing, which keeps housing scarce and rents high, and prices more people out of self-ownership. The big caveat here being the abominable subsidies for loan interest, because they encourage people to bid up the price of land, which makes buying and creating housing more expensive rather than less, with the balance of the money going to the banks.

crdoconnor 10y ago
"Anything that makes property more expensive increases rents, because it discourages the creation of new housing" Increasing council tax discourages land hoarding which would actually free up more land for the creation of new housing. The supply of housing in the UK is not limited by how much builders want to build. It is limited by availability of land. Moreover, if coupled with heavy investment in council housing (the only thing in the past that has actually ever meaningfully added supply to the market), that would bring down rents a lot.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  Taxing land and using the money to subsidize housing construction has the potential to work, but you're probably better off with land value tax (or some entirely unrelated tax) than council tax in that context. The problem with council tax is that if you do the desired thing and build new housing, your taxes go up because now you have more property. You also don't really need the government to operate the buildings. Build them and sell them for cost, or just make it a tax deduction to do construction that increases the number of housing units on a lot. As long as it gets built it doesn't much matter who owns it, and then you don't have the local government in the property maintenance business for no real benefit.