6 ms·

I’m surprised that no one is considering taxing (highly) unoccupied flats. The issue is that foreign (I’m assuming that’s dog-whistle for Chinese) money is look

by bertil 9y ago

I’m surprised that no one is considering taxing (highly) unoccupied flats. The issue is that foreign (I’m assuming that’s dog-whistle for Chinese) money is looking for investments but that those crowd out people who work there. By making renting meaningfully advantageous, you can keep the investment (and have modern, state of the art real estate) and housing for families.

naasking 9y ago
> I’m surprised that no one is considering taxing (highly) unoccupied flats. It's the logistics. How would you police it?
- bertil 9y ago
  Detection via water, gas or electricity consumption; postal mail to the address with a suggestion you might have to pay the higher rate; challenges of that letter lead to visits where you are expected to provide evidence of living (water, gas, electricity, internet bills). Similar things are being monitored rather effectively: TV fee in the UK, child welfare, cannabis cultivation. The point is not to be perfect but to tell people that they can’t own an asset with large externalities and not use it.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Detection via water, gas or electricity consumption So we punish people who might just be conservative environmentalists? These are all metrics that can be spoofed if the expected return is high, which it certainly seems to be in real estate.
    - bertil 9y ago
      - Would we punish people who consume so little water, electricity or gas that they appear as not there? Of course not, but people who save enough to not product garbage are still quite rare; they still use water and electricity. Some people have their own well and solar array/windmill, those rarely live in a densely populated city where raising the level limit hits the local Nimbysm. Once again: that’s the first step for detection, city inspectors would most likely be happy to flag you for a medal if you actually save resources that aggressively. > These are all metrics that can be spoofed Indeed, but wasting water to save tax sounds quite egregious. Once again: finding a renter that pays you is financially far more beneficial. The point of the tax is to signal it’s not OK to sit on a property and speculate, not collect more tax.
      - naasking 9y ago
        Sure, signaling is fine, as long as it's effective. Dealing with tenants is tedious and laborious. Someone who can speculate on multiple properties probably places a higher value on his time than the cost of utilities. But I suppose we'll see, since some governments are going to try these controls.

by bertil 9y ago

naasking 9y ago

> I’m surprised that no one is considering taxing (highly) unoccupied flats. It's the logistics. How would you police it?

bertil 9y ago
Detection via water, gas or electricity consumption; postal mail to the address with a suggestion you might have to pay the higher rate; challenges of that letter lead to visits where you are expected to provide evidence of living (water, gas, electricity, internet bills). Similar things are being monitored rather effectively: TV fee in the UK, child welfare, cannabis cultivation. The point is not to be perfect but to tell people that they can’t own an asset with large externalities and not use it.
- naasking 9y ago
  > Detection via water, gas or electricity consumption So we punish people who might just be conservative environmentalists? These are all metrics that can be spoofed if the expected return is high, which it certainly seems to be in real estate.
  - bertil 9y ago
    - Would we punish people who consume so little water, electricity or gas that they appear as not there? Of course not, but people who save enough to not product garbage are still quite rare; they still use water and electricity. Some people have their own well and solar array/windmill, those rarely live in a densely populated city where raising the level limit hits the local Nimbysm. Once again: that’s the first step for detection, city inspectors would most likely be happy to flag you for a medal if you actually save resources that aggressively. > These are all metrics that can be spoofed Indeed, but wasting water to save tax sounds quite egregious. Once again: finding a renter that pays you is financially far more beneficial. The point of the tax is to signal it’s not OK to sit on a property and speculate, not collect more tax.
    - naasking 9y ago
      Sure, signaling is fine, as long as it's effective. Dealing with tenants is tedious and laborious. Someone who can speculate on multiple properties probably places a higher value on his time than the cost of utilities. But I suppose we'll see, since some governments are going to try these controls.