4 ms·

Focusing on foreign buyers is a distractionary tactic. The primary cause of housing value spiking comes down to investors and speculators. Combat those, and the

Focusing on foreign buyers is a distractionary tactic. The primary cause of housing value spiking comes down to investors and speculators. Combat those, and the marketplace will return to sane valuations: • Speculation tax of 50% of the assessed or sold home value (whichever is greater) of any home held for less than two years, decreasing on a daily basis to 0% over years 3 through 8. Exemptions can be had due to extenuating circumstances (military or police redeployment, divorce, death of co-holder of title, etc.). Because most pre-sales are snatched up by investors before ground has even been broken, only to be sold for two or three times its original value upon completion. • Businesses (and by proxy, business owners that own multiple businesses) cannot own more than one rental residence per municipal district. This prevents speculators from buying up entire neighbourhoods just to jack up rents. There is a valid case for a business to own a residence (to host guests of the business), but anything more than the occasional guest can be put up in a hotel. • Individual non-business landlords cannot derive more than 50% of their income from rental properties. Another method is to have taxes on rental income on a sliding scale depending on what proportion of their entire personal income rent is a part of, starting at normal rates up to 20% of income and rising to 100% taxation at the point where 100% of income is rental income. The last one alone ought to protect people for whom landlording is NOT a full time job in of itself, such as people with mortgage helper suites or second homes that they upgraded from. The point being, those with just one or three units are far less likely to be predatory than slumlords who own entire apartment blocks or institutional investors that own a significant block of rental units in a city. And such a progressive taxation scheme ought to materially prevent rentals from being dominated by a handful of investors.

hello_moto 5y ago
> Individual non-business landlords cannot derive more than 50% of their income from rental properties Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees. How would you ensure they can retire and still have income via properties? I guess you can add clausal to exclude {retirement_age} ownership? Hopefully nobody uses them as proxy. Tricky huh?
- medvezhenok 5y ago
  > Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan. If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Extracting surplus income from workers via property rent-seeking should not be a way to fund retirement in the first place.
  - hello_moto 5y ago
    > Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan It's how many retirees in high living cost around the world fetch their income (when their retirement < standard of living cost of the city). I don't see that as a problem for those who work hard and made good decisions throughout their life. > If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Riskier. Why should they? Blaming them for holding one or two properties for retirement income is pretty much scapegoating the victim of the situation given for them: they made the best investment choice and they're being told that they're part of the problem. I see many people blaming "shareholder's" greed too when it comes to investment. The truth is that majority of people are just trying to secure their future and it's hard to blame them because their choices are guided by their surrounding (what's given to them). I would look into the Government (specifically the cities, municipalities, and urban planners). They have the power to shape our environment.
    - medvezhenok 5y ago
      What about people who inherited a property and then can retire off the rent that someone pays for it? Do they deserve it for the work their parents put in? How many generations does that extend to? The point is that this eventually devolves into a feudal system of landowners and workers - it's been tried in Europe, and while it's great for the landowning class, it's not as great for the workers. > Riskier. Why should they? Yes, my point is the fact that owning/renting houses is the safest retirement option is a political choice, not a law of nature. And that political choice is specifically benefitting retires as a whole at the cost of the working population. I believe that people should be able to finance their own retirement, but via real contribution to society - yes, I have problems with stocks and other methods of passive income as well. I think they should exist, but that they should be much less advantageous than they are now. The fact that these methods are the ones chosen to promote to achieve financial independence is a large part of what leads to moral rot in America today. People see that hard work is not rewarded - financial speculation, holding real estate and other unproductive work is what is really rewarded, and that calls into question the whole American dream. So yes, I believe things need to change - and a land value tax is a step in the right direction. Also increasing capital gains to the level of the income tax. I understand how to play the current system, but I interact with lots of people (and have friends) at different income scales from the homeless to middle class to centi-millionaires and so I've seen how unfair the system is and how unequal the opportunities at the different ends are. There's also way less options for making big money in a moral way - as a society, we seem to have chosen to reward inherently immoral actions higher than moral ones.
88840-8855 5y ago
I see you put a lot of thought into tag issue and yet, i much be that guy and tell you that it will just add a lot of bureaucracy and those who have resources and knowledge will be able to circumvent those restrictions. And it does not solve the problems of: - there is just too much cash out there - land is limited. once it's gone, it's gone - when you die, your kids get your house and land
jl2718 5y ago
This will just create complicated sales contracts, and advantage bigger landlords. The simple solution is market-valued property tax, because it’s basically unavoidable.
- medvezhenok 5y ago
  The solution is land value tax. Nobody deserves to own a SFH in a large city when that land could be used for more housing - you want to live in a SFH, move to the countryside (or pay an exorbitant tax rate which will fund other development). It's also why LA is such a mess.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    Seems anachronistic to me. There are many resources other than land which define an economy and a nation state.

hello_moto 5y ago

> Individual non-business landlords cannot derive more than 50% of their income from rental properties Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees. How would you ensure they can retire and still have income via properties? I guess you can add clausal to exclude {retirement_age} ownership? Hopefully nobody uses them as proxy. Tricky huh?

medvezhenok 5y ago
> Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan. If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Extracting surplus income from workers via property rent-seeking should not be a way to fund retirement in the first place.
- hello_moto 5y ago
  > Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan It's how many retirees in high living cost around the world fetch their income (when their retirement < standard of living cost of the city). I don't see that as a problem for those who work hard and made good decisions throughout their life. > If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Riskier. Why should they? Blaming them for holding one or two properties for retirement income is pretty much scapegoating the victim of the situation given for them: they made the best investment choice and they're being told that they're part of the problem. I see many people blaming "shareholder's" greed too when it comes to investment. The truth is that majority of people are just trying to secure their future and it's hard to blame them because their choices are guided by their surrounding (what's given to them). I would look into the Government (specifically the cities, municipalities, and urban planners). They have the power to shape our environment.
  - medvezhenok 5y ago
    What about people who inherited a property and then can retire off the rent that someone pays for it? Do they deserve it for the work their parents put in? How many generations does that extend to? The point is that this eventually devolves into a feudal system of landowners and workers - it's been tried in Europe, and while it's great for the landowning class, it's not as great for the workers. > Riskier. Why should they? Yes, my point is the fact that owning/renting houses is the safest retirement option is a political choice, not a law of nature. And that political choice is specifically benefitting retires as a whole at the cost of the working population. I believe that people should be able to finance their own retirement, but via real contribution to society - yes, I have problems with stocks and other methods of passive income as well. I think they should exist, but that they should be much less advantageous than they are now. The fact that these methods are the ones chosen to promote to achieve financial independence is a large part of what leads to moral rot in America today. People see that hard work is not rewarded - financial speculation, holding real estate and other unproductive work is what is really rewarded, and that calls into question the whole American dream. So yes, I believe things need to change - and a land value tax is a step in the right direction. Also increasing capital gains to the level of the income tax. I understand how to play the current system, but I interact with lots of people (and have friends) at different income scales from the homeless to middle class to centi-millionaires and so I've seen how unfair the system is and how unequal the opportunities at the different ends are. There's also way less options for making big money in a moral way - as a society, we seem to have chosen to reward inherently immoral actions higher than moral ones.

88840-8855 5y ago

I see you put a lot of thought into tag issue and yet, i much be that guy and tell you that it will just add a lot of bureaucracy and those who have resources and knowledge will be able to circumvent those restrictions. And it does not solve the problems of: - there is just too much cash out there - land is limited. once it's gone, it's gone - when you die, your kids get your house and land

jl2718 5y ago

This will just create complicated sales contracts, and advantage bigger landlords. The simple solution is market-valued property tax, because it’s basically unavoidable.

medvezhenok 5y ago
The solution is land value tax. Nobody deserves to own a SFH in a large city when that land could be used for more housing - you want to live in a SFH, move to the countryside (or pay an exorbitant tax rate which will fund other development). It's also why LA is such a mess.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Seems anachronistic to me. There are many resources other than land which define an economy and a nation state.