4 ms·
If no one wants to buy you drop the price until they do. Not saying it’s a good policy, but it would drive down real estate speculation and lower rent.
by valine 5y ago
If no one wants to buy you drop the price until they do. Not saying it’s a good policy, but it would drive down real estate speculation and lower rent.
- chrisseaton 5y agoWhat if you drop the price to zero and still nobody has any use for it at the moment?
- valine 5y agoPresumably the vacancy tax would be tied to the value of the property. If the property really is worthless you won’t be paying taxes on it.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> Presumably the vacancy tax would be tied to the value of the property. > increases every month It can't be both things at the same time. And who's setting this land value? If it's on the market and nobody's buying then we don't know the value.
- robinson7d 5y agoWhy can’t it be both? Could have a logarithmic scale, could have it increase by a fraction of a % of $(value - currentTax) so that it increases more slowly over time. Not saying I agree with the underlying idea, just confused about why “increases ever month” necessarily means it cannot be “tied to the value of the property” in a `calculateTax(propValue, timeEmpty)` sort of way.
- datastoat 5y agoHow about making the tax increase each month the unit is unoccupied, but also making it proportional to the asking rent? No one has any use for it, high asking rent => high tax. No one has any use for it, very low asking rent => low tax.
- ectopod 5y agoIf nobody will buy the property for $1 then it's worthless. Gift it the local authority and then you won't have to pay the tax.
- chrisseaton 5y agoPeople won't buy it because it comes with a tax burden. They might buy it to redevelop it if it didn't.
- ectopod 5y agoSo over time the vacancy tax is increasing and the sale price is going down. Obviously the vendor needs to sell or redevelop before the price hits zero. If they fail to do so then they lose the property. Speculation sometimes fails. What's the problem?
- effingwewt 5y agoGood, then it will go to someone who needs a house, not another rent-seeking parasite.
- dwater 5y agoThat does not seem like a realistic problem for very many places. If a jurisdiction contains land with so little value that it won't support the taxes required for upkeep of the jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction could dissolve. Which is what happens to a ghost town I would imagine. That is not likely to happen to New York City.
- tomjen3 5y agoThat would require that nobody has any extra use for free/cheap space. It would mean that nobody needs additional storage space, nobody needs space for a studio or an office. This would essentially only happen if you rented in a mega high crime area, which means landlords would be incentivized to do something about crime.
- rdtwo 5y agoThen you use a percent of asking rent
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]