3 ms·

Land tax is a must but I have an even funnier idea. Tax corporations per employee and adjust the amount to the housing shortage. Make the tax truly terrifying i

by 6510 6y ago

Land tax is a must but I have an even funnier idea. Tax corporations per employee and adjust the amount to the housing shortage. Make the tax truly terrifying if there is a big shortage. If you really must run your shop in that ultra expensive location you just pay for it. If you cant afford it you simply do not have what it takes, the area is not for you and you should leave. Make room for a business that belongs OR turn the building into housing. You would still have home owners who want to continue to ride the housing ponzi but they would be directly opposed by corporations. The revenue should be reserved for subsidies on constructive construction. Free money for anyone who [partially] solves the problem.

imtringued 6y ago
Your proposed tax could be based on a "housing pressure index", basically squarefeet of livable space per person or people per squarefoot. This index would measure if there are lots of families living in cramped conditions or people living with room mates. If housing pressure is too high, tax corporations more.
- 6510 6y ago
  If you go by squarefoot large homes would distort the picture. I was thinking some formula counting people who want/need to live there.
- chii 6y ago
  > If housing pressure is too high, tax corporations more. It's always "tax more to solve problem X, as long as the target of that tax isn't me".
  - 6510 6y ago
    The target of the tax should be the party creating the problem so that they themselves can solve it. Before you plant down your office in some densely populated area you make a cost benefit analysis. The housing problem is part of the cost. We've traditionally expected others to deal with it (read pay for it) but it doesn't work. Or put differently, we've failed employers in creating housing for their employees. So now that we've proven ourselves incompetent we might as well put the puzzle in front of those who created it. It's easy to ignore your staff being unable to afford a roof over their head if you are relatively unaffected by it. The moment you get billed for it you can assign the task to someone and create a budget. If there are also subsidies we can expect corporations to attempt to solve the puzzle. If they are unaffected by the problem it is really hard to get some solution going internally. Who knows, perhaps they are more competent than the rest of us? If not the number of jobs (demand) can be scaled down to fit supply.
refurb 6y ago
Taxing new hires? Sounds like a great way to chase jobs away.
- 6510 6y ago
  More houses can be build, transportation can be improved, people can work from home. People want to move to expensive areas to work because companies chose to create their jobs there. If a business is not profitable enough to be there they should move some place else. If you want to allow mediocre businesses people will have to sleep under the bridge, on the sofa with friends or find some other way to live packed up like sardines. The mediocre salary demands it. We can apparently fit a lot more jobs in a city than it can deal with. The jobs are not the scarce resource. They will continue to exist some place better. Some place where the salary buys a good life.

by 6510 6y ago

imtringued 6y ago

Your proposed tax could be based on a "housing pressure index", basically squarefeet of livable space per person or people per squarefoot. This index would measure if there are lots of families living in cramped conditions or people living with room mates. If housing pressure is too high, tax corporations more.

6510 6y ago
If you go by squarefoot large homes would distort the picture. I was thinking some formula counting people who want/need to live there.
chii 6y ago
> If housing pressure is too high, tax corporations more. It's always "tax more to solve problem X, as long as the target of that tax isn't me".
- 6510 6y ago
  The target of the tax should be the party creating the problem so that they themselves can solve it. Before you plant down your office in some densely populated area you make a cost benefit analysis. The housing problem is part of the cost. We've traditionally expected others to deal with it (read pay for it) but it doesn't work. Or put differently, we've failed employers in creating housing for their employees. So now that we've proven ourselves incompetent we might as well put the puzzle in front of those who created it. It's easy to ignore your staff being unable to afford a roof over their head if you are relatively unaffected by it. The moment you get billed for it you can assign the task to someone and create a budget. If there are also subsidies we can expect corporations to attempt to solve the puzzle. If they are unaffected by the problem it is really hard to get some solution going internally. Who knows, perhaps they are more competent than the rest of us? If not the number of jobs (demand) can be scaled down to fit supply.

refurb 6y ago

Taxing new hires? Sounds like a great way to chase jobs away.

6510 6y ago
More houses can be build, transportation can be improved, people can work from home. People want to move to expensive areas to work because companies chose to create their jobs there. If a business is not profitable enough to be there they should move some place else. If you want to allow mediocre businesses people will have to sleep under the bridge, on the sofa with friends or find some other way to live packed up like sardines. The mediocre salary demands it. We can apparently fit a lot more jobs in a city than it can deal with. The jobs are not the scarce resource. They will continue to exist some place better. Some place where the salary buys a good life.