4 ms·

Why not progressively increment after the second? (not mutually exclusive with other measures)

by rch 4y ago

tomrod 4y ago
Local small-time property ownership encourages land liquidity (that isn't our current issue, but is an issue). That model currently looks good up to a 4plex.
- beaconstudios 4y ago
  Plus you want to encourage models like a housing co-op - they're pretty good for keeping people's housing costs down and building community relations.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I would guess that tomrod owns 9 houses.
- tomrod 4y ago
  LOL! Nah, I was looking for a simple, reasonable bound was all.
franciscop 4y ago
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think to promote everyone's owning a house, and even small-size investments, but to avoid megacorps the ideal would be something like: 1 house - tax breaks 2 houses - same taxes as currently for 2 houses 3+ houses - incrementally more expensive with each extra house Also there's a really nice law in Spain, born for the wrong reasons, that makes you pay more taxes if the house is empty vs if someone lives there.
- Aunche 4y ago
  Why should I, a small time REIT holder, pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents out a few, million-dollar units for that matter? I think every individual should be entitled to 500k in preferential property tax (1 million for couples), and every dollar above that should be taxed a lot higher. In places where there is high demand, new housing can also be taxed at the preferential rate some number of years to incentivize development.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    > Why should I, a small time REIT holder pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents a few million-dollae units for that matter? To decrease the return on holding property indefinitely, which prevents renters from building equity to the benefit of small-time REIT holders. The outcome of this is an increase in home ownership which has a host of benefits to society. It also helps economic benefits to stay in the local area. Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. What is _not_ desirable is a large financial firm like Blackrock or JPMC siphoning off the liquidity of the housing market.
    - Aunche 4y ago
      What's better for the housing market: someone who buys a $10 million home for themselves, or someone who buys 10, $1 million dollar apartments and rents them out? If anything, the former should be paying a higher property tax because they're constraining the supply buyer and renter markets. >Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. Yes, I largely agree with Georgism, but I don't think incentivizing rich people to buy the largest home possible is within the spirit of Georgism. You'd also run into the problem of people pretending their apartment complex is really just a large mansion. They'd likely spend money on renovations that make the units less desirable to make it classify as a single home. >What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? What benefit does my landlord provide that a REIT doesn't? REITs allow me to be invested in real estate without exposing me to too much risk associated with a single location. >Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. No REIT can exist with 10 homes. That's way too much money proportionally spent on administrating it.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        I don't think the pocketbooks of REIT owners justify keeping the status quo housing market. Commercial and industrial REITs can do fine with 10 properties. Residential REITs perhaps shouldn't exist, as residences typically aren't directly economically productive. Business and investment models can adjust; management companies would fill the investment gap for REITs. So rather than direct ownership, shareholders can instead invest in publicly traded property management firms -- arguably what a REIT should do anyhow. With fewer units, landlords have more incentive to keep properties in working order to keep up liquidity should they choose to sell. This helps offset the tax incentive to let properties go to ruin. I don't follow your assertion that increasing taxes on larger ownerships would result in rich people buying the biggest property they could possibly afford. People do that anyway?
- kogepathic 4y ago
  > 1 house - tax breaks Why should society be subsidizing home ownership more than they already do? The real estate market already discriminates against people who cannot afford a deposit (an increasing proportion of people, since house prices are increasing so rapidly), and the design of North American cities encourages urban spawl which is unsustainable with current property tax rates. [1] > and I think to promote everyone's owning a house Why? Half of German households rent [2] and no one is wringing their hands about how people should be owning their home instead of renting. As someone who has lived in Europe and North America, there seems to be a borderline obsession with owning a house in anglophone countries, and I don't understand why. If the rental market is sane (e.g. rent is approximately equivalent to a mortgage) then it's up to the individual if they want to purchase a home (e.g. to renovate how they see fit) or is comfortable just renting. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/global-percentage-rent-own-global-property/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/global-percentage-ren...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Home ownership was picked as a goal for America after the Great Depression/World War 2 and it hasn't changed since. Amusingly enough we have rent inversions in many markets right now, rental costs are below mortgage carrying costs.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    If you pay a mortgage and you expect the housing market to stay stable or increase, you are investing in an asset. Rent is gone to the owner, in exchange for one more month/two weeks/year/whatever frequency the payment is paid to the owner. The opportunity cost between a mortgage and rent is not dollar for dollar (euro for euro, or whatever).
  - franciscop 4y ago
    > "Why should society be subsidizing home ownership more than they already do?" Because it's good for society if a large % of the population owns a home. I'm not advocating for more urban sprawl. > "no one is wringing their hands about how people should be owning their home instead of renting" What do you mean? People are desperate in e.g. Berlin, that they don't come here to HN and write in German about it doesn't mean that it's all rosy. > "there seems to be a borderline obsession with owning a house in anglophone countries" I'm a Spaniard living in Japan, not American, so not sure what you mean.

Why not progressively increment after the second? (not mutually exclusive with other measures)

by rch 4y ago

Why not progressively increment after the second? (not mutually exclusive with other measures)

Local small-time property ownership encourages land liquidity (that isn't our current issue, but is an issue). That model currently looks good up to a 4plex.

beaconstudios 4y ago
Plus you want to encourage models like a housing co-op - they're pretty good for keeping people's housing costs down and building community relations.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I would guess that tomrod owns 9 houses.

tomrod 4y ago
LOL! Nah, I was looking for a simple, reasonable bound was all.

franciscop 4y ago

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think to promote everyone's owning a house, and even small-size investments, but to avoid megacorps the ideal would be something like: 1 house - tax breaks 2 houses - same taxes as currently for 2 houses 3+ houses - incrementally more expensive with each extra house Also there's a really nice law in Spain, born for the wrong reasons, that makes you pay more taxes if the house is empty vs if someone lives there.

Aunche 4y ago
Why should I, a small time REIT holder, pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents out a few, million-dollar units for that matter? I think every individual should be entitled to 500k in preferential property tax (1 million for couples), and every dollar above that should be taxed a lot higher. In places where there is high demand, new housing can also be taxed at the preferential rate some number of years to incentivize development.
- tomrod 4y ago
  > Why should I, a small time REIT holder pay more proportionately in property taxes than a celebrity in a Beverly Hills mansion, or even my landlord who only rents a few million-dollae units for that matter? To decrease the return on holding property indefinitely, which prevents renters from building equity to the benefit of small-time REIT holders. The outcome of this is an increase in home ownership which has a host of benefits to society. It also helps economic benefits to stay in the local area. Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. What is _not_ desirable is a large financial firm like Blackrock or JPMC siphoning off the liquidity of the housing market.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    What's better for the housing market: someone who buys a $10 million home for themselves, or someone who buys 10, $1 million dollar apartments and rents them out? If anything, the former should be paying a higher property tax because they're constraining the supply buyer and renter markets. >Basically, Georgism tax policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism. Yes, I largely agree with Georgism, but I don't think incentivizing rich people to buy the largest home possible is within the spirit of Georgism. You'd also run into the problem of people pretending their apartment complex is really just a large mansion. They'd likely spend money on renovations that make the units less desirable to make it classify as a single home. >What benefits do you see REITs provide to a community, beyond increasing your personal wealth? What benefit does my landlord provide that a REIT doesn't? REITs allow me to be invested in real estate without exposing me to too much risk associated with a single location. >Also, a hard cap of, say, 10 homes without increase would still allow REITs to exist depending on implementation. No REIT can exist with 10 homes. That's way too much money proportionally spent on administrating it.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      I don't think the pocketbooks of REIT owners justify keeping the status quo housing market. Commercial and industrial REITs can do fine with 10 properties. Residential REITs perhaps shouldn't exist, as residences typically aren't directly economically productive. Business and investment models can adjust; management companies would fill the investment gap for REITs. So rather than direct ownership, shareholders can instead invest in publicly traded property management firms -- arguably what a REIT should do anyhow. With fewer units, landlords have more incentive to keep properties in working order to keep up liquidity should they choose to sell. This helps offset the tax incentive to let properties go to ruin. I don't follow your assertion that increasing taxes on larger ownerships would result in rich people buying the biggest property they could possibly afford. People do that anyway?
kogepathic 4y ago
> 1 house - tax breaks Why should society be subsidizing home ownership more than they already do? The real estate market already discriminates against people who cannot afford a deposit (an increasing proportion of people, since house prices are increasing so rapidly), and the design of North American cities encourages urban spawl which is unsustainable with current property tax rates. [1] > and I think to promote everyone's owning a house Why? Half of German households rent [2] and no one is wringing their hands about how people should be owning their home instead of renting. As someone who has lived in Europe and North America, there seems to be a borderline obsession with owning a house in anglophone countries, and I don't understand why. If the rental market is sane (e.g. rent is approximately equivalent to a mortgage) then it's up to the individual if they want to purchase a home (e.g. to renovate how they see fit) or is comfortable just renting. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI [2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/global-percentage-rent-own-global-property/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/global-percentage-ren...
- bombcar 4y ago
  Home ownership was picked as a goal for America after the Great Depression/World War 2 and it hasn't changed since. Amusingly enough we have rent inversions in many markets right now, rental costs are below mortgage carrying costs.
- tomrod 4y ago
  If you pay a mortgage and you expect the housing market to stay stable or increase, you are investing in an asset. Rent is gone to the owner, in exchange for one more month/two weeks/year/whatever frequency the payment is paid to the owner. The opportunity cost between a mortgage and rent is not dollar for dollar (euro for euro, or whatever).
- franciscop 4y ago
  > "Why should society be subsidizing home ownership more than they already do?" Because it's good for society if a large % of the population owns a home. I'm not advocating for more urban sprawl. > "no one is wringing their hands about how people should be owning their home instead of renting" What do you mean? People are desperate in e.g. Berlin, that they don't come here to HN and write in German about it doesn't mean that it's all rosy. > "there seems to be a borderline obsession with owning a house in anglophone countries" I'm a Spaniard living in Japan, not American, so not sure what you mean.