5 ms·
Well, I agree on both points, but "We should tax X [and maybe redistribute Y]" is very different from "We should de-regulate or fundamentally change Z", is all.
by simonsarris 7y ago
Well, I agree on both points, but "We should tax X [and maybe redistribute Y]" is very different from "We should de-regulate or fundamentally change Z", is all.
It's hard to actually address Piketty's inequality at all if people think it spawns from something fundamentally different from land/real estate appreciation.
> I'm not sure if it's actually that easy to change the laws surrounding housing
Totally agree, but I don't mean to make any claims about how hard it would be, only that it would actually address the thing in question, whereas other interventions would not.
- JimboOmega 7y agoCouldn't we address the real estate problem by having (more) property taxes? I wonder how much impact prop 13 alone had on the problem (I also wonder how the US analysis would look with California subtracted) Of course such taxes wouldn't automatically create housing, but it definitely disincentivizes hoarding it, and allows the state to capture more of the accrued wealth to redistribute it. It makes real estate look like a less enticing holding and would make people less entrenched in defending its value, etc.
- jessaustin 7y agoProperty taxes are higher on more developed property. In general, when you tax something more you get less of it. There might be exceptions, but wouldn't a more credible plan be to relax some of the zoning and regulation that are widely acknowledged to deter housing construction?