4 ms·

> Screw taxing...make it illegal for any person or entity to own more than say, 2 houses. Maybe 3 Taxes are a simpler and more effective though. Ideal solution

> Screw taxing...make it illegal for any person or entity to own more than say, 2 houses. Maybe 3 Taxes are a simpler and more effective though. Ideal solution is a land tax on comparable sales price of the estate less some portion of replacement cost of non-obsolete fixed capital improvements. If there is a lot large enough for 10 houses worth millions in the middle of the city next to publicly maintained infrastructure, investors might be able to avoid the cap by rendering the units uninhabitable, removing toilets, etc. Land and property taxes do not have to be flat taxes. They are easy to make distributive by adding an X% deduction on the first $Y in tax payments per resident per billing period that they resided in the same jurisdiction that the parcel is located. State governments can reform property tax system by appointing state commissioners to chair a state board of equalization attended by local assessors to reappraise property values at the state level. When this was done in the Progressive Era, states found large areas of land held by railroad corporations and barons which were not being taxed at all and put them on the tax rolls. The federal government can also introduce a national property tax by amending and reintroducing the direct tax collected under James Madison. Any increase in direct land or property tax burden can be offset by distributive offsets for permanent residents or cuts to regressive taxes such as sales taxes and payroll taxes.

axaxs 5y ago
Understood and good points, but think of the end game. I talked to a guy last week who works for an 'investment' firm. He said they're buying about 10 houses a week in my market, renting them all. It really blew my mind. Imagine if businesses eventually buy -all- housing. You can tax them 10000%, they'll just pass it on to renters. I feel like we're slipping back to feudal times.
- visualradio 5y ago
  > Imagine if businesses eventually buy -all- housing. You can tax them 10000%, they'll just pass it on to renters No, that's incorrect. For vacant, obsolete, uninhabitable, and undeveloped properties there are no tenants. There is no one to pass the tax on to. In order to acquire cash to pay the tax the owners without tenants must either sell off excess properties at lower prices or lower leases to attract more tenants. The land fraction of real estate value is already monopoly price. Without direct property and land tax, and no public carrying cost, investors could hold properties off the market forever to maximize sales price and surplus extracted from buyers. Imposing a higher public carrying cost does not give them additional leverage to hold out for higher prices, it does the opposite decreases the time they can afford to hold properties off the market. And a pure land value tax which fully exempts replacement cost of improvements would also create zero market barrier to supplying new homes and instead reduce market barrier by making land more plentiful. And with a distributive tax it should also be clear that real estate investment trusts and foreign direct investors aren't getting the tax deduction because they aren't a permanent resident. U.S. has relied on levying direct property taxes at higher rates than other nations to prevent overaccumulation since early 1700s. If direct taxes weren't successful at reducing overaccumulation then the U.S. would never have become a superpower. Generally with most indirect taxes like sales taxes where the tax can be shifted the businesses which remain open rarely lobby against them once they are put in place. But in every age of history the large land holders have regular complained about direct taxes on landed property, precisely because they are much more difficult to shift.

axaxs 5y ago

Understood and good points, but think of the end game. I talked to a guy last week who works for an 'investment' firm. He said they're buying about 10 houses a week in my market, renting them all. It really blew my mind. Imagine if businesses eventually buy -all- housing. You can tax them 10000%, they'll just pass it on to renters. I feel like we're slipping back to feudal times.

visualradio 5y ago
> Imagine if businesses eventually buy -all- housing. You can tax them 10000%, they'll just pass it on to renters No, that's incorrect. For vacant, obsolete, uninhabitable, and undeveloped properties there are no tenants. There is no one to pass the tax on to. In order to acquire cash to pay the tax the owners without tenants must either sell off excess properties at lower prices or lower leases to attract more tenants. The land fraction of real estate value is already monopoly price. Without direct property and land tax, and no public carrying cost, investors could hold properties off the market forever to maximize sales price and surplus extracted from buyers. Imposing a higher public carrying cost does not give them additional leverage to hold out for higher prices, it does the opposite decreases the time they can afford to hold properties off the market. And a pure land value tax which fully exempts replacement cost of improvements would also create zero market barrier to supplying new homes and instead reduce market barrier by making land more plentiful. And with a distributive tax it should also be clear that real estate investment trusts and foreign direct investors aren't getting the tax deduction because they aren't a permanent resident. U.S. has relied on levying direct property taxes at higher rates than other nations to prevent overaccumulation since early 1700s. If direct taxes weren't successful at reducing overaccumulation then the U.S. would never have become a superpower. Generally with most indirect taxes like sales taxes where the tax can be shifted the businesses which remain open rarely lobby against them once they are put in place. But in every age of history the large land holders have regular complained about direct taxes on landed property, precisely because they are much more difficult to shift.