3 ms·
That’s a pretty terrible idea. Sure, maybe in Manhattan where the economy is good that would work, but in less prospereous places that’s just regressive and wil
by mruts 8y ago
That’s a pretty terrible idea. Sure, maybe in Manhattan where the economy is good that would work, but in less prospereous places that’s just regressive and will cause the economy to get into a death spiral.
Here’s how that would work:
1. A couple stores owned by a landlord close down due to a recession or something.
2. Landlord has to keep the vacancies for awhile while he finds other renters.
3. He get’s levied the extra taxes due to the vacant properties. Now he really needs to get it off his books or find a renter.
4. He can’t find a renter because the economy is bad. So he tries to sell the properties.
5. He either doesn’t sell it, or sells it a big discount because the buyer needs to price in the tax premium.
6. Rinse and repeat.
- vageli 8y ago> That’s a pretty terrible idea. Sure, maybe in Manhattan where the economy is good that would work, but in less prospereous places that’s just regressive and will cause the economy to get into a death spiral. > Here’s how that would work: 1. A couple stores owned by a landlord close down due to a recession or something. > 2. Landlord has to keep the vacancies for awhile while he finds other renters. > 3. He get’s levied the extra taxes due to the vacant properties. Now he really needs to get it off his books or find a renter. > 4. He can’t find a renter because the economy is bad. So he tries to sell the properties. > 5. He either doesn’t sell it, or sells it a big discount because the buyer needs to price in the tax premium. > 6. Rinse and repeat. If this is truly "rinse and repeat", since each subsequent sell results in a price discount, wouldn't the price eventually settle on what the market can bear?
- mruts 8y agoLook at Detroit, where the government was giving away houses for $50 (literally).