4 ms·

What do you think about regulation that enforces a maximum limit on the number of dwellings or properties any individual can own? > At what point is someone's

What do you think about regulation that enforces a maximum limit on the number of dwellings or properties any individual can own? > At what point is someone's wealth acquisition too much–$1b, $10b, $100b, $1t? > Limitarianism is the view that no-one should enjoy more than an upper limit of some valuable goods or resources > Plato's Socrates identifies the ‘endless acquisition of money’ (Plato, 1997b, 373d) as the main cause of civil unrest and war. > In his last dialogue, the Laws, Plato gives a more or less complete limitarian account with a specification of both a lower and an upper threshold. According to this account, ‘extreme poverty and wealth must not be allowed to arise in any section of the citizen-body’ (Plato, 1997a, 744d). > Plato provides a detailed description of the lower threshold which each citizen should meet: everyone should obtain one dwelling near the centre of the country and another one near the outskirts. The size of the pieces of land on which these dwellings are built will vary according to the fertility of the land and its distance to the city [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ejop.12535 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ejop.12535

sooheon 5y ago
When it comes to economics, I don't believe in hard limits. Policies should not be brittle numeric rules ($15 minimum wage, $800 maximum rent, 1 child policy). Think gradients that affect incentives at every point in the map, not hard step functions with wide open loopholes. Plato's ideas seem well intentioned but somewhat ignorant of higher order economic effects of such "1 child policy" like rules. Much better to have a tax policy that's well aligned with the incentives we want to promote, and let the market figure the rest out.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  I've always wondered why taxes were percentage based but many govt benefits were hard numbers. It seems like a clever govt trick. Allow the outgo to be reduced by inflation but allow the income to adjust to accommodate inflation.
- bostik 5y ago
  Plato's ideas were also rooted in the times he lived in. He lived in ancient Greece, in the city-state of Athens - the birth place of democracy. And the word "citizen" does a lot of heavy lifting... At the time, roughly 3% of the population were citizens. You had to be landed, wealthy and/or politically influental to qualify. Incidentally, only citizens had a vote. The other 97% were riff-raff, poor, slaves or otherwise unsuitable to be allowed to have a voice in the nation's decisions. Hence their opinion didn't matter.
IkmoIkmo 5y ago
I think it's hardly enforceable in a world where real estate can be owned by legal entities, which can be set-up on paper in seconds. Besides, in a free market it should not matter to prices whether I own two properties, or me and my brother (acting individually) own a property each, the market will set prices and neither of us can with one or two or 200 properties. Of course there's a limit to this logic, which is when you own so much you have a monopoly, but there's no entity that I'm aware of that has a monopoly in residential real estate or anything close to it.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  It's easily enforceable. Avoid applying the tax to primary residences. If it's not a primary residence, tax.
  - IkmoIkmo 5y ago
    You've not addressed my point. The idea is not to tax, it's to have a progressive tax. i.e., the more units you own, the more limitations or taxes you pay. That doesn't work if investment firms can invest in individual entities owning individual properties.
- bostik 5y ago
  > but there's no entity that I'm aware of that has a monopoly in residential real estate or anything close to it. Singapore might come close.[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore -- "The majority of the residential housing developments in Singapore are publicly governed and developed, and home to approximately 78.7% of the resident population."
  - IkmoIkmo 5y ago
    But that's public housing, owned by the state, governed by a democratic vote. The theoretical chance that the state will abuse its monopoly position to squeeze renters is extremely remote, and in fact the opposite of the going practice in Singapore.

sooheon 5y ago

When it comes to economics, I don't believe in hard limits. Policies should not be brittle numeric rules ($15 minimum wage, $800 maximum rent, 1 child policy). Think gradients that affect incentives at every point in the map, not hard step functions with wide open loopholes. Plato's ideas seem well intentioned but somewhat ignorant of higher order economic effects of such "1 child policy" like rules. Much better to have a tax policy that's well aligned with the incentives we want to promote, and let the market figure the rest out.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
I've always wondered why taxes were percentage based but many govt benefits were hard numbers. It seems like a clever govt trick. Allow the outgo to be reduced by inflation but allow the income to adjust to accommodate inflation.
bostik 5y ago
Plato's ideas were also rooted in the times he lived in. He lived in ancient Greece, in the city-state of Athens - the birth place of democracy. And the word "citizen" does a lot of heavy lifting... At the time, roughly 3% of the population were citizens. You had to be landed, wealthy and/or politically influental to qualify. Incidentally, only citizens had a vote. The other 97% were riff-raff, poor, slaves or otherwise unsuitable to be allowed to have a voice in the nation's decisions. Hence their opinion didn't matter.

IkmoIkmo 5y ago

I think it's hardly enforceable in a world where real estate can be owned by legal entities, which can be set-up on paper in seconds. Besides, in a free market it should not matter to prices whether I own two properties, or me and my brother (acting individually) own a property each, the market will set prices and neither of us can with one or two or 200 properties. Of course there's a limit to this logic, which is when you own so much you have a monopoly, but there's no entity that I'm aware of that has a monopoly in residential real estate or anything close to it.

R0b0t1 5y ago
It's easily enforceable. Avoid applying the tax to primary residences. If it's not a primary residence, tax.
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  You've not addressed my point. The idea is not to tax, it's to have a progressive tax. i.e., the more units you own, the more limitations or taxes you pay. That doesn't work if investment firms can invest in individual entities owning individual properties.
bostik 5y ago
> but there's no entity that I'm aware of that has a monopoly in residential real estate or anything close to it. Singapore might come close.[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore -- "The majority of the residential housing developments in Singapore are publicly governed and developed, and home to approximately 78.7% of the resident population."
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  But that's public housing, owned by the state, governed by a democratic vote. The theoretical chance that the state will abuse its monopoly position to squeeze renters is extremely remote, and in fact the opposite of the going practice in Singapore.