3 ms·

It would make so much more sense to just implement a progressive wealth tax combined with tax rules which make owning more than one home very expensive. I woul

It would make so much more sense to just implement a progressive wealth tax combined with tax rules which make owning more than one home very expensive. I would also be interested to see what would happen if the rental and sales markets were forced to only supply houses which matched the current building codes - it would make building much more competitive.

em-bee 6y ago
now that would be interesting. if an old flat or house became unrentable or unsellable once the current occupant moves out because it doesn't match current requirements, then landlords would be begging renters to stay. on the other hand, individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. in any case everyone would be forced to keep their buildings up to standard.
- effie 6y ago
  > individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. It's good because it would motivate owners to own only as few houses as possible (to minimize work on updates), and many more people could own a home then.
  - mustyoshi 6y ago
    It would cause prices to go up because in order to sell it has to he up to code, meaning renovations. It would likely cause consolidation of ownership, something like 70% of all apartments in my area are owned by the same company. And since they have consistent rules... It can be hard for certain people (those with criminal records) to find affordable housing.
kwhitefoot 6y ago
> only supply houses which matched the current building codes That would either destroy vast numbers of perfectly usable and often interesting or historic buildings or require the creation of a system for giving exemptions in order to preserve them. And of course this gives an opportunity for corruption and cronyism.
nemo44x 6y ago
We sort of have that. Your primary residence gets tax advantages generally and your other properties don’t.

em-bee 6y ago

now that would be interesting. if an old flat or house became unrentable or unsellable once the current occupant moves out because it doesn't match current requirements, then landlords would be begging renters to stay. on the other hand, individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. in any case everyone would be forced to keep their buildings up to standard.

effie 6y ago
> individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. It's good because it would motivate owners to own only as few houses as possible (to minimize work on updates), and many more people could own a home then.
- mustyoshi 6y ago
  It would cause prices to go up because in order to sell it has to he up to code, meaning renovations. It would likely cause consolidation of ownership, something like 70% of all apartments in my area are owned by the same company. And since they have consistent rules... It can be hard for certain people (those with criminal records) to find affordable housing.

kwhitefoot 6y ago

> only supply houses which matched the current building codes That would either destroy vast numbers of perfectly usable and often interesting or historic buildings or require the creation of a system for giving exemptions in order to preserve them. And of course this gives an opportunity for corruption and cronyism.

nemo44x 6y ago

We sort of have that. Your primary residence gets tax advantages generally and your other properties don’t.