3 ms·
Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue. The real problem is that when you incentivize a
by koboll 7y ago
Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue.
The real problem is that when you incentivize and subsidize putting your net worth into a single large investment vehicle, and then let holders of that investment decide how much competition to it will be allowed nearby, it creates a vicious cycle of ever-increasing supply shortage.
Eventually, of course, this will reverse. When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. But not before an entire generation has their net worth leeched by a geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> When the boomers die, renters will be the ones voting. When the Boomers die, their GenX and Millenial offspring will inherit their homes, oftentimes, in California, without a full-value tax assessment. And, as the relationships between wealth and voting propensity and wealth and homeownersip are both unlikely to switch directions, homeowners will still be overrepresented in the electorate, and there'll be a new generation of the geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing-supply hoarders, and a new generation complaining about them.
- kofejnik 7y ago> geriatric vampire class of rent-seeking housing supply hoarders. why so salty?
- generalpass 7y agoIf I understand it correctly, when people die the state and IRS collect taxes from the estate based on the value. Since most people these days die in debt, it's most likely the property will have to be sold to cover the taxes owed by the estate. This would mean the inheritance in many cases will be the cash left over from the property sale.