4 ms·

Perhaps it's because I'm one of those dirty rotten real estate agents, but I'm not understanding your motivation with this set of recommendations you posit. >*

Perhaps it's because I'm one of those dirty rotten real estate agents, but I'm not understanding your motivation with this set of recommendations you posit. >* allow for multifamily housing Zoning is entirely a local matter, so sure, talk to your local city / county / state if you prefer there to be more allocation for multifamily. It isn't something that the feds have any control over. >* remove the mortgage interest deduction So what's your goal here, given that historically this was the single biggest tax benefits to the (ever-declining) middle class. >* implement land taxes instead of property taxes Real estate is predicated on the concept that adding value to the land increases its value. So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. >* have the Fed stop purchasing mortgage backed securities (in the midst of a housing bubble) Real estate is local. I'm sure there are markets that are in a bubble, but that doesn't mean that every market is experiencing that. >* get the government out of the mortgage securitization business These programs by and large benefit the non-wealthy by providing a degree of stability in the mortgage market that make it worthwhile for lenders to lend. Wealthy investors generally don't care - they are paying cash, working out seller financing arrangements, borrowing from hard money lenders, or have long-term bank relationships such that they have all the access to conventional money they need. It's the less fortunate and middle-class that get hurt when government programs are restricted.

prutschman 5y ago
> So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. If land--but specifically not improvements to that land--is taxed then there's relatively more incentive to make productive use of the land. $1 of investment to improve the productivity of land by building housing or whatever is tax advantaged over $1 of investment to try to hold onto appreciating land in hopes it goes up.
antognini 5y ago
> Real estate is predicated on the concept that adding value to the land increases its value. So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. An issue with property taxes as they are currently implemented is that they discourage development. Someone who owns a parking lot in downtown Los Angeles will pay very low property taxes on that land relative to someone who has built a large apartment building (even setting aside Prop 13). If the owner of the parking lot decides to build an apartment building on it, their property taxes will go way up. So the county is punishing the property owner for developing on that land, even though it's socially desirable. The idea is that the land value is value that is created by the property's location, not anything the owner has specifically done. In other words, it's value created by the rest of the society that the owner has captured. However, development on the land is produced by the owner. A land value tax captures some of the value produced by society as a whole and does not tax value that was created by the owner. This incentivizes owners to develop on their land. (Or more properly, doesn't disincentivize development.)
msluyter 5y ago
>>* remove the mortgage interest deduction >So what's your goal here, given that historically this was the single biggest tax benefits to the (ever-declining) middle class. Weird, I've mostly read that it disproportionally helps the rich. Examples: [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2018/may/why-economists-dont-like-mortgage-interest-deduction https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2018/may/why-economist... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2019/06/28/should-we-get-rid-of-the-mortgage-interest-deduction/?sh=3d9ff37e69b4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2019/06/28/should-we-... [3] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-econ...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
BirdieNZ 5y ago
> Real estate is predicated on the concept that adding value to the land increases its value. So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. Check out Henry George; given it's HN, check out Scott Alexander's blog on Henry George: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...

prutschman 5y ago

> So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. If land--but specifically not improvements to that land--is taxed then there's relatively more incentive to make productive use of the land. $1 of investment to improve the productivity of land by building housing or whatever is tax advantaged over $1 of investment to try to hold onto appreciating land in hopes it goes up.

antognini 5y ago

> Real estate is predicated on the concept that adding value to the land increases its value. So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. An issue with property taxes as they are currently implemented is that they discourage development. Someone who owns a parking lot in downtown Los Angeles will pay very low property taxes on that land relative to someone who has built a large apartment building (even setting aside Prop 13). If the owner of the parking lot decides to build an apartment building on it, their property taxes will go way up. So the county is punishing the property owner for developing on that land, even though it's socially desirable. The idea is that the land value is value that is created by the property's location, not anything the owner has specifically done. In other words, it's value created by the rest of the society that the owner has captured. However, development on the land is produced by the owner. A land value tax captures some of the value produced by society as a whole and does not tax value that was created by the owner. This incentivizes owners to develop on their land. (Or more properly, doesn't disincentivize development.)

msluyter 5y ago

>>* remove the mortgage interest deduction >So what's your goal here, given that historically this was the single biggest tax benefits to the (ever-declining) middle class. Weird, I've mostly read that it disproportionally helps the rich. Examples: [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2018/may/why-economists-dont-like-mortgage-interest-deduction https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2018/may/why-economist... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2019/06/28/should-we-get-rid-of-the-mortgage-interest-deduction/?sh=3d9ff37e69b4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2019/06/28/should-we-... [3] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-econ...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

BirdieNZ 5y ago

> Real estate is predicated on the concept that adding value to the land increases its value. So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax. Check out Henry George; given it's HN, check out Scott Alexander's blog on Henry George: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...