4 ms·

Rent control is using the power of the state to coerce individuals. Limiting tax increases reduces the power of the state to coerce individuals. The two have

by abtinf 7y ago

Rent control is using the power of the state to coerce individuals. Limiting tax increases reduces the power of the state to coerce individuals. The two have nothing in common.

crdoconnor 7y ago
Land owners neither made the land they own nor do they make it valuable, yet the state protects their "right" WITH violence to exercise full control over it and exclude others from it. Those taxes should be orders of magnitude higher. If you didn't make the land, you're renting it.
- mc32 7y ago
  What about landfill areas[1] like the Marina, Embarkadero, SoMa and much of the bay side of SF as well as Treasure Island? Would they get special treatment? Also, land in and of itself isn't desirable if the economy of the area isn't right (lots of rural places around the world are depopulating as cities attract their countrysides). [1]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792ee55203e577 https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792e...
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
A reminder that Hacker News has an "assume the strongest interpretation of one's argument" idea. (In case it's not clear, expanding with my thoughts below). What is the primary effect of rent control? Everyone renting before the enactment pays proportionally less in rent than those after enactment. What is the primary effect of Prop 13? Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes than those who purchased after 1978. These are huge, (in my view) obvious parallels between the two. Both policies encourage the market to become sticky: renters won't leave, for fear of giving up their cheap rent as time goes own; for landowners, they are discouraged to sell, knowing an identical property would raise their annual property tax expenses. As property values go up, it further encourages landowners to hold, becoming a negative feedback loop on the housing supply.
- jedberg 7y ago
  > Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes than those who purchased after 1978. It's even worse than that, since prop 13 isn't a one time thing. Just like rent control, you lock in whenever you purchase. My neighbor pays double what I do for effectively the same house. It's totally unfair to them.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    I'd imagine it's very unfair for people who bought in 2006 vs 2008 vs 2010. One time, I asked an older coworker about this, and he told me that getting a reassessment was popular for those who purchased in the bubble after it popped.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  I would say the original motivation for both is the same, but the outcome is definitely worse with Prop 13.

by abtinf 7y ago

Rent control is using the power of the state to coerce individuals. Limiting tax increases reduces the power of the state to coerce individuals. The two have nothing in common.

crdoconnor 7y ago

Land owners neither made the land they own nor do they make it valuable, yet the state protects their "right" WITH violence to exercise full control over it and exclude others from it. Those taxes should be orders of magnitude higher. If you didn't make the land, you're renting it.

mc32 7y ago
What about landfill areas[1] like the Marina, Embarkadero, SoMa and much of the bay side of SF as well as Treasure Island? Would they get special treatment? Also, land in and of itself isn't desirable if the economy of the area isn't right (lots of rural places around the world are depopulating as cities attract their countrysides). [1]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792ee55203e577 https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792e...

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

A reminder that Hacker News has an "assume the strongest interpretation of one's argument" idea. (In case it's not clear, expanding with my thoughts below). What is the primary effect of rent control? Everyone renting before the enactment pays proportionally less in rent than those after enactment. What is the primary effect of Prop 13? Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes than those who purchased after 1978. These are huge, (in my view) obvious parallels between the two. Both policies encourage the market to become sticky: renters won't leave, for fear of giving up their cheap rent as time goes own; for landowners, they are discouraged to sell, knowing an identical property would raise their annual property tax expenses. As property values go up, it further encourages landowners to hold, becoming a negative feedback loop on the housing supply.

jedberg 7y ago
> Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes than those who purchased after 1978. It's even worse than that, since prop 13 isn't a one time thing. Just like rent control, you lock in whenever you purchase. My neighbor pays double what I do for effectively the same house. It's totally unfair to them.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  I'd imagine it's very unfair for people who bought in 2006 vs 2008 vs 2010. One time, I asked an older coworker about this, and he told me that getting a reassessment was popular for those who purchased in the bubble after it popped.
Ericson2314 7y ago
I would say the original motivation for both is the same, but the outcome is definitely worse with Prop 13.