6 ms·

A vacancy tax seems weird to me. It's effectively the same thing as a higher property tax, but with a discount for non-vacancy. That is, a discount for putting

A vacancy tax seems weird to me. It's effectively the same thing as a higher property tax, but with a discount for non-vacancy. That is, a discount for putting anything in that space. I just don't see why you would give out a discount without ensuring the use of the property is doing something that provides a public benefit.

drb91 8y ago
> I just don't see why you would give out a discount without ensuring the use of the property is doing something that provides a public benefit. Public benefit and the profit margin are inversely correlated. The idea that you can encourage any benefit without having public competition is laughable. There is no market effect that can encourage people to care about the public benefit over profits. The key is to remove the landlord from the equation entirely and de-commodify real estate, especially residential real estate.
abathur 8y ago
I've been mulling this a lot for a while now. I see so much vacant space and wonder how much of a boon it would be to small entrepreneurs and communities if the market were optimizing for filling a larger share of rental space. I suppose it might be disappointing if the rents dropped and all it lured in were payday loan shops, and I imagine any tax enough to effect behavior will also induce some landlords to just fake occupancy to dodge the tax without the liabilities/risks of an additional business running onsite. I'm a little skeptical (but maybe not pessimistic?) about how plausible it is to engineer public-benefit outcomes for this kind of space?
4ntonius8lock 8y ago
The way I see, to care for vacant property, you need police, roads, and a ton of infrastructure. This is also needed for property that is used. A non-vacant used property will provide a city with money in the form of sales taxes, jobs, growth, fees and in general prosperity. A town with a ton of small independently owned shops and restaurants (a side effect of forcing property on the market) is more attractive than one with strip malls filled with franchises. It will make people want to live there and drive prices up. Why should a vacant property pay the same tax? It's taking up the same and paying less, in fact, in many cases, the vacant property is pulling down the value of the city. It's only fair for the vacant property owner to have to pay to blight his community. Such an arrangement is dealing with externalized costs, which is one of the best functions of government.
- akincisor 8y ago
  Does this same logic apply to promote a Wealth Tax on people who have wealth that's being hoarded?
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    Assuming you're talking about money, actually no. Money doesn't have any associated geometry or topology, ie one bit of money, unlike land, is pretty much equivalent to another. It would be like "hoarding" a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere: only a problem if you're taking up a significant fraction of the global supply.
  - 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
    Nope. You hoarding wealth won't make the neighborhood less appealing. The hoarder is not free loading. New wealth can be created, we don't need yours. If your investment real estate is contributing $1/square foot in property taxes but everyone else's occupied property is contributing $5/square foot in wages, sales tax, property tax and municipal fees... then it makes sense to charge the free loaders. This isn't even dealing with the blight and community development points. Just from a financial perspective it makes sense.
- RaceWon 8y ago
  > The way I see, to care for vacant property, The way I see it; an added tax will just be an encumbrance on the budding entrepreneur, who worked two jobs, and begged to get the financing on that property. She has dreams, passion and a vision--she rolled the dice and will be bankrupt if she doesn't execute and have a bit of luck. > which is one of the best functions of government In a free society, perhaps the best function of government (which is nothing more than a random collection of random people) is to be as invisible as possible, and not to try to ram their (here again--this random collection of random people) agenda down everyone else's throat, every single chance they get.
  - 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
    Sorry if where you live they are random. Where I live they are elected. And while I feel for the entrepreneur, this type of tax won't affect them if they lease it out. There is no way for everyone to be happy. Needs have to be prioritized (like the need of the city to be prosperous over the need of the landlord to squeeze a few more cents out of a place)
bluGill 8y ago
Vacant property needs more police and fire protection. When someone is there they keep the "riff-raft" out.
jdreyfuss 8y ago
Vacant properties have a lot of negative externalities -- higher safety risks, reduction in the quality of a neighborhood and in foot traffic (harming other businesses), higher incidences of squatting/homeless encampments, etc. A vacancy tax is an attempt to correct for those externalities and encourage better behavior from landlords. This is a situation where just having something is noticeably better than nothing at all.

drb91 8y ago

> I just don't see why you would give out a discount without ensuring the use of the property is doing something that provides a public benefit. Public benefit and the profit margin are inversely correlated. The idea that you can encourage any benefit without having public competition is laughable. There is no market effect that can encourage people to care about the public benefit over profits. The key is to remove the landlord from the equation entirely and de-commodify real estate, especially residential real estate.

abathur 8y ago

I've been mulling this a lot for a while now. I see so much vacant space and wonder how much of a boon it would be to small entrepreneurs and communities if the market were optimizing for filling a larger share of rental space. I suppose it might be disappointing if the rents dropped and all it lured in were payday loan shops, and I imagine any tax enough to effect behavior will also induce some landlords to just fake occupancy to dodge the tax without the liabilities/risks of an additional business running onsite. I'm a little skeptical (but maybe not pessimistic?) about how plausible it is to engineer public-benefit outcomes for this kind of space?

4ntonius8lock 8y ago

The way I see, to care for vacant property, you need police, roads, and a ton of infrastructure. This is also needed for property that is used. A non-vacant used property will provide a city with money in the form of sales taxes, jobs, growth, fees and in general prosperity. A town with a ton of small independently owned shops and restaurants (a side effect of forcing property on the market) is more attractive than one with strip malls filled with franchises. It will make people want to live there and drive prices up. Why should a vacant property pay the same tax? It's taking up the same and paying less, in fact, in many cases, the vacant property is pulling down the value of the city. It's only fair for the vacant property owner to have to pay to blight his community. Such an arrangement is dealing with externalized costs, which is one of the best functions of government.

akincisor 8y ago
Does this same logic apply to promote a Wealth Tax on people who have wealth that's being hoarded?
- a1369209993 8y ago
  Assuming you're talking about money, actually no. Money doesn't have any associated geometry or topology, ie one bit of money, unlike land, is pretty much equivalent to another. It would be like "hoarding" a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere: only a problem if you're taking up a significant fraction of the global supply.
- 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
  Nope. You hoarding wealth won't make the neighborhood less appealing. The hoarder is not free loading. New wealth can be created, we don't need yours. If your investment real estate is contributing $1/square foot in property taxes but everyone else's occupied property is contributing $5/square foot in wages, sales tax, property tax and municipal fees... then it makes sense to charge the free loaders. This isn't even dealing with the blight and community development points. Just from a financial perspective it makes sense.
RaceWon 8y ago
> The way I see, to care for vacant property, The way I see it; an added tax will just be an encumbrance on the budding entrepreneur, who worked two jobs, and begged to get the financing on that property. She has dreams, passion and a vision--she rolled the dice and will be bankrupt if she doesn't execute and have a bit of luck. > which is one of the best functions of government In a free society, perhaps the best function of government (which is nothing more than a random collection of random people) is to be as invisible as possible, and not to try to ram their (here again--this random collection of random people) agenda down everyone else's throat, every single chance they get.
- 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
  Sorry if where you live they are random. Where I live they are elected. And while I feel for the entrepreneur, this type of tax won't affect them if they lease it out. There is no way for everyone to be happy. Needs have to be prioritized (like the need of the city to be prosperous over the need of the landlord to squeeze a few more cents out of a place)

bluGill 8y ago

Vacant property needs more police and fire protection. When someone is there they keep the "riff-raft" out.

jdreyfuss 8y ago

Vacant properties have a lot of negative externalities -- higher safety risks, reduction in the quality of a neighborhood and in foot traffic (harming other businesses), higher incidences of squatting/homeless encampments, etc. A vacancy tax is an attempt to correct for those externalities and encourage better behavior from landlords. This is a situation where just having something is noticeably better than nothing at all.