7 ms·
The issues of taxation and rent control are orthogonal. You don't have to own a rent controlled building to be an anti rent control advocate. In fact, owners of
by pg_bot 8y ago
The issues of taxation and rent control are orthogonal. You don't have to own a rent controlled building to be an anti rent control advocate. In fact, owners of market rate buildings benefit from the existence of rent control and I know many of them dislike it.
I'm very well aware of Georgism. In fact I agree that LVT is likely the least bad tax. However, there are challenges to implementation; mainly how to fairly assess the value of the land and what to do with capital improvements to it.
- pimmen 8y agoThere are absolutely challenges to it, but the same goes for removing rent control. How do you make sure there is no discriminatory pricing for example. We can't just say no to everything that doesn't work perfectly if it adds a lot of value to society.
- pg_bot 8y agoA lot of people ignore the cost of discrimination to the person who is discriminating. When you discriminate against someone you are eliminating the profits you would gain from doing business with them. In highly competitive markets with low profits you have limited ability to discriminate as your company will go out of business if it chooses to do so. In less competitive markets (monopolies) you are more likely to see discrimination since there is less of a cost paid by the discriminator. There is no magic wand to end discrimination entirely, but encouraging highly competitive markets is the best way to bridge the gap. If you want more detailed information about market discrimination, I suggest you read "Product Market Structure And Labor Market Discrimination"[0] The same principles apply to the housing market. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Product-Market-Structure-Labor-Discrimination/dp/0791466248 https://www.amazon.com/Product-Market-Structure-Labor-Discri...
- pimmen 8y agoI agree, but some things we aren't comfortable making into highly competitive markets. To make housing more competitive for everyone, both tenants and landlords, we would have to do something about the notice of eviction (because if the tenant gets a notice that's time without any revenue and no good way to market the home since it's occupied) and with the contracts (because to make it highly competitive you need flexibility). Also, the zoning laws are a nuisance because they limit how much supply of housing we can do, same thing with environmental regulations on building processes and materials. As long as the choice of tenant is a risk people will act as people and use superficial traits to infer suitability as a tenant. They will use past, unchallenged experiences which are more commonly called prejudices. When it comes to soda however, a highly competitive market, things change completely. You can raise supply much quicker and you receive payment right away, and the customers ability to not honor the commitment is very limited since they consume the soda. Even if you believe all kinds of things about a black man's ability to keep a steady job, what types of people come over and visit him, his recreational activities and his family situation it doesn't matter, he's got the money for soda and you've got the soda, what happens after the transaction is of no concern to you. Even if you're a straight up racist it would be foolish not the take the black man's money and give him a soda. However, when the purchase is him signing the dotted line and you getting money every week or month you get more reserved about who you do business with.
- gowld 8y ago> what to do with capital improvements to it. capital improvements are not taxed in an LVT scheme. That's the L in LVT.