3 ms·
I'd take them building more expensive housing (as long as it's not used purely as an empty investment vehicle as in London) over barely building anything at all
by Tenoke 6y ago
I'd take them building more expensive housing (as long as it's not used purely as an empty investment vehicle as in London) over barely building anything at all. I know people who would've paid a bit more for a nicer place but their options were too limited, so I'd expect some trickle-up/down effect at least.
- kokey 6y agoThere is a point when you run out of people who are willing to spend millions on the empty investment vehicles so I'm hoping even those properties will help with supply when the tide eventually do go out. Unfortunately it could take a very long time before this happens.
- mattmanser 6y agoIsn't it widely used for money laundering and wealth sheltering? Don't think there's an end to that money.
- slavik81 6y agoAn endless supply of money sounds like a great source of tax revenue. It's rather difficult to evade a property tax.
- llampx 6y agoThere are millions of chinese and other people who want safe investment vehicles. If the government does nothing, land and housing in a big capital can easily be usurped by investors who then take massive tax breaks.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoInvestors will profit most by renting out their property. Allowing the profit motive to work to increase supply is an effective way to reduce the price consumers pay in every industry, including the rental market. Profit is just an emergent form of social compensation for addressing a shortage. That society enacts laws to prevent the profit motive from working, and incentivizing socially beneficial behavior, is a tragedy.
- mattmanser 6y agoThis "trickle-up/down effect" is the exact excuse they've been using to justify it. As far as I know, it's a widely discredited theory, never based on any actual studies.