4 ms·

Try passing rent onto tenants with LVT in place where all the real estate sitting idle suddenly enters the market. Just try. You either adopt LVT or your civil

Try passing rent onto tenants with LVT in place where all the real estate sitting idle suddenly enters the market. Just try. You either adopt LVT or your civilization ends. With sky high real estate prices you can choose a fast death by civil conflict and war or slow death by having birth rates below replacement. Either way, you die. The next civilization repeats the cycle.

arwineap 5y ago
> where all the real estate sitting idle suddenly enters the market Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? Existing rentals are not going to lower their prices, so these new rentals that are coming into market are simply going to match the existing rentals, because otherwise they would be leaving money on the table
- 6510 5y ago
  I think the height of taxation makes the difference. Your 10% would go up if the tax is higher. IMHO (or call it a gut feeling) the best way to ruin market value is not higher or lower taxation. You have to change the tax often and dramatically. Tie it to the difference between highest and lowest temperatures measured in the previous year every 13th full moon.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  > Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? It’s a way to store money now, and drives up the appreciation. Sometimes the money is illicit or hidden from taxes or govs. Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it
  - arwineap 5y ago
    Drives up appreciation... I guess, but that can only be realized when you sell, or you refi out and get charged more money for holding it vacant. > Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it Seems like the government made changes in 2017 with the Empty home tax. Gotta say, the numbers do not look that interesting. 1,627 vacants in 2020 out of 195,012 residences. The doc notes that in 2017 there were 2,193 vacants, which indicates that the problem wasn't really that much worse than it is now. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-tax-annual-report.pdf https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-ta... Is it possible that it's something other people intentionally losing money on vacant properties?
wahern 5y ago
> With sky high real estate prices LVTs can't fix sky high real estate prices as that's principally a problem with zoning. In fact, communities can and will and do (remember, as the article mentions an LVT is hidden inside traditional property taxes) use zoning to prevent assessment increases. Fixing zoning will do much more to address inequity than even a complete switch to an LVT. Don't fix zoning and LVT won't actually accomplish much of anything. That's why you see similar patterns of development across the board, regardless of LVT. When homeowners begin to feel the displacement effects of LVT, one of two things invariably happens: LVT is dropped (or otherwise moderated--e.g. geographically selective decreases in tax rate), or development is restricted through zoning and similar regulations. LVT is undeniably a great solution, it's just a solution to the wrong problem.
- BirdieNZ 5y ago
  Why not both? It's not entirely clear that either solution is going to magically make life wonderful by itself but both are going to have very positive effects on society and have some overlap in effect.
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    Absolutely. We could overturn zoning more easily than implementing LVT; it’s not popular but it’s legally dubious.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

arwineap 5y ago

> where all the real estate sitting idle suddenly enters the market Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? Existing rentals are not going to lower their prices, so these new rentals that are coming into market are simply going to match the existing rentals, because otherwise they would be leaving money on the table

6510 5y ago
I think the height of taxation makes the difference. Your 10% would go up if the tax is higher. IMHO (or call it a gut feeling) the best way to ruin market value is not higher or lower taxation. You have to change the tax often and dramatically. Tie it to the difference between highest and lowest temperatures measured in the previous year every 13th full moon.
throwoutway 5y ago
> Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? It’s a way to store money now, and drives up the appreciation. Sometimes the money is illicit or hidden from taxes or govs. Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it
- arwineap 5y ago
  Drives up appreciation... I guess, but that can only be realized when you sell, or you refi out and get charged more money for holding it vacant. > Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it Seems like the government made changes in 2017 with the Empty home tax. Gotta say, the numbers do not look that interesting. 1,627 vacants in 2020 out of 195,012 residences. The doc notes that in 2017 there were 2,193 vacants, which indicates that the problem wasn't really that much worse than it is now. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-tax-annual-report.pdf https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-ta... Is it possible that it's something other people intentionally losing money on vacant properties?

wahern 5y ago

> With sky high real estate prices LVTs can't fix sky high real estate prices as that's principally a problem with zoning. In fact, communities can and will and do (remember, as the article mentions an LVT is hidden inside traditional property taxes) use zoning to prevent assessment increases. Fixing zoning will do much more to address inequity than even a complete switch to an LVT. Don't fix zoning and LVT won't actually accomplish much of anything. That's why you see similar patterns of development across the board, regardless of LVT. When homeowners begin to feel the displacement effects of LVT, one of two things invariably happens: LVT is dropped (or otherwise moderated--e.g. geographically selective decreases in tax rate), or development is restricted through zoning and similar regulations. LVT is undeniably a great solution, it's just a solution to the wrong problem.

BirdieNZ 5y ago
Why not both? It's not entirely clear that either solution is going to magically make life wonderful by itself but both are going to have very positive effects on society and have some overlap in effect.
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  Absolutely. We could overturn zoning more easily than implementing LVT; it’s not popular but it’s legally dubious.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]