5 ms·

Regulate behaviour, not ownership. If you want landlords to behave better, then rather than keeping them small, stick limits on what they can do.

scotty79 8y ago
You can only regulate what you can measure. Ownership is very easy to measure. And tax progressively.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  And suddenly one landlord owns ten companies trough subsidiaries and trusts. This is yet another nice trick that won't work. Besides, price and demand curve would still apply where it was one landlord or hundreds. What would help is to encourage housing density to increase supply. That has two main drive: building regulations (mandate building of a certain height) and taxation (tax building by footprint and not by height/units) Messing with ownership will only make people creative.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    > And suddenly one landlord owns ten companies trough subsidiaries and trusts. This is yet another nice trick that won't work. If you own anything that owns property (and etc. down the chain) then you pay same progressive tax on all properties owned directly on indirectly (minus the tax already payed by subsidiaries if the lawmaker feels so generous, he may not be, because why not discourage creative ownership). > Besides, price and demand curve would still apply where it was one landlord or hundreds. Sure, but if ownership is not that beneficial for large capital holders then less money is used to buy properties. If there is less money and same amount of properties then prices drop. Then more individuals can afford properties, and demand for renting is lower and rents go down. > What would help is to encourage housing density to increase supply. That has two main drive: building regulations (mandate building of a certain height) and taxation (tax building by footprint and not by height/units) If there's more property to buy but plenty of capital to buy then big landlords just buy more and hold, even empty property. Higher supply would probably drive down price a bit, but not as much as you'd expect. The problem is not only insufficient supply but competition between people who have too much capital and people who have barely enough. First group just drives the prices up for everybody, as high as the other group can barely suffer through.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Ask how that worked out when the UK went for system built high-rise estates or the projects in NYC
- AdrianB1 8y ago
  Taxes are not a punishment, it is a fair contribution to the costs of having a government and society. If you make it a punishment you turn it into the whip you use to herd cattle, recognizing you treat people like cattle.
  - sm4rk0 8y ago
    Mega-landlords are not people.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    Taxes are not a punishment. Taxes are the way of financing government and whatever government decides should be financed. What to tax however is open for debate. First you have to be pragmatic and tax things you can measure. If you can't reliably measure something people will just dodge your tax. Then you have to avoid taxing too much things that are necessary for the economy. What you can safely tax are the behaviors you want to get rid of, like smoking or drinking, or using too much electricity, or emitting co2, or hoarding real estate. If you reduce these behaviors through taxing it's all the better. Taxes are not fair in any shape or form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
    - anthonybullard 8y ago
      That's actually not obviously safe at all, you are now basing your recent stands if behavior that in your own estimation is not desired. This creates a really weird incentive structure for legislators and regulators alike.
Aeolun 8y ago
Yeah, that was my impression when reading the article as well. If the problem is that new landlords are raising the rent by inordinate amounts, maybe that is what you should restrict instead. Though I’m not really opposed to breaking up big landlords either, it feels a bit disingenuous to punish people (or companies) for success.
- pintxo 8y ago
  > it feels a bit disingenuous to punish people (or companies) for success. Have been there as well. My current position on this is, that the sources for success are hardly one dimensional. Sure hard work helps, but it also helps to happen to have good contacts, be born rich, be beautiful and tall, been grown up in the right social circles, having met the right people etc. So it‘s less punishing hard work, and more creating a balance with those less lucky.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    While I agree that there's many factors that go into success anyone looking to control for luck at scale had better be willing to rack up an impressive body count because those kinds of systemic changes to society are never peaceful. People will not just accept being told they do not deserve what they have and that it is the result of luck. You are not going to get people to give up what they have without a lot of force.
- patall 8y ago
  It is a bit more complicated than that. The landlords are not raising the rent much (because laws exist already in that place) but rather 'offer' a new snow service (that you have to get, even though that we have maybe 2 half snow days a year) for 300 € a year, and a new janitor service for 50 € a month and so on. They upgrade your building (meaning you cannot really live there due to construction noises) and then put most of the upgrading price on top of your rent. And finally, the big landlord companies do not exist due to success but due to big investment fonds deciding that it makes sense to buy many houses in such a cheap city. And to be honest, the actually good renting laws also play a big rule in this as they protect rents very good and such a single bad renter can become a big problem for small landlords. Also you have to cover so many restrictions etc that it becomes expensive/challenging to rent out (i.e my collegue is currently suing his landlady for a decrease in rent of 580€ per month due to an error in the contract)
cheriot 8y ago
Or remove their economic power by allowing more home to get built.

scotty79 8y ago

You can only regulate what you can measure. Ownership is very easy to measure. And tax progressively.

LoSboccacc 8y ago
And suddenly one landlord owns ten companies trough subsidiaries and trusts. This is yet another nice trick that won't work. Besides, price and demand curve would still apply where it was one landlord or hundreds. What would help is to encourage housing density to increase supply. That has two main drive: building regulations (mandate building of a certain height) and taxation (tax building by footprint and not by height/units) Messing with ownership will only make people creative.
- scotty79 8y ago
  > And suddenly one landlord owns ten companies trough subsidiaries and trusts. This is yet another nice trick that won't work. If you own anything that owns property (and etc. down the chain) then you pay same progressive tax on all properties owned directly on indirectly (minus the tax already payed by subsidiaries if the lawmaker feels so generous, he may not be, because why not discourage creative ownership). > Besides, price and demand curve would still apply where it was one landlord or hundreds. Sure, but if ownership is not that beneficial for large capital holders then less money is used to buy properties. If there is less money and same amount of properties then prices drop. Then more individuals can afford properties, and demand for renting is lower and rents go down. > What would help is to encourage housing density to increase supply. That has two main drive: building regulations (mandate building of a certain height) and taxation (tax building by footprint and not by height/units) If there's more property to buy but plenty of capital to buy then big landlords just buy more and hold, even empty property. Higher supply would probably drive down price a bit, but not as much as you'd expect. The problem is not only insufficient supply but competition between people who have too much capital and people who have barely enough. First group just drives the prices up for everybody, as high as the other group can barely suffer through.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Ask how that worked out when the UK went for system built high-rise estates or the projects in NYC
AdrianB1 8y ago
Taxes are not a punishment, it is a fair contribution to the costs of having a government and society. If you make it a punishment you turn it into the whip you use to herd cattle, recognizing you treat people like cattle.
- sm4rk0 8y ago
  Mega-landlords are not people.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Taxes are not a punishment. Taxes are the way of financing government and whatever government decides should be financed. What to tax however is open for debate. First you have to be pragmatic and tax things you can measure. If you can't reliably measure something people will just dodge your tax. Then you have to avoid taxing too much things that are necessary for the economy. What you can safely tax are the behaviors you want to get rid of, like smoking or drinking, or using too much electricity, or emitting co2, or hoarding real estate. If you reduce these behaviors through taxing it's all the better. Taxes are not fair in any shape or form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
  - anthonybullard 8y ago
    That's actually not obviously safe at all, you are now basing your recent stands if behavior that in your own estimation is not desired. This creates a really weird incentive structure for legislators and regulators alike.

Aeolun 8y ago

Yeah, that was my impression when reading the article as well. If the problem is that new landlords are raising the rent by inordinate amounts, maybe that is what you should restrict instead. Though I’m not really opposed to breaking up big landlords either, it feels a bit disingenuous to punish people (or companies) for success.

pintxo 8y ago
> it feels a bit disingenuous to punish people (or companies) for success. Have been there as well. My current position on this is, that the sources for success are hardly one dimensional. Sure hard work helps, but it also helps to happen to have good contacts, be born rich, be beautiful and tall, been grown up in the right social circles, having met the right people etc. So it‘s less punishing hard work, and more creating a balance with those less lucky.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  While I agree that there's many factors that go into success anyone looking to control for luck at scale had better be willing to rack up an impressive body count because those kinds of systemic changes to society are never peaceful. People will not just accept being told they do not deserve what they have and that it is the result of luck. You are not going to get people to give up what they have without a lot of force.
patall 8y ago
It is a bit more complicated than that. The landlords are not raising the rent much (because laws exist already in that place) but rather 'offer' a new snow service (that you have to get, even though that we have maybe 2 half snow days a year) for 300 € a year, and a new janitor service for 50 € a month and so on. They upgrade your building (meaning you cannot really live there due to construction noises) and then put most of the upgrading price on top of your rent. And finally, the big landlord companies do not exist due to success but due to big investment fonds deciding that it makes sense to buy many houses in such a cheap city. And to be honest, the actually good renting laws also play a big rule in this as they protect rents very good and such a single bad renter can become a big problem for small landlords. Also you have to cover so many restrictions etc that it becomes expensive/challenging to rent out (i.e my collegue is currently suing his landlady for a decrease in rent of 580€ per month due to an error in the contract)

cheriot 8y ago

Or remove their economic power by allowing more home to get built.