2 ms·
>by ceding the properties to someone who will actually rent out the units, or buy it and actually live there. Unfortunately, the vacancies I am describing are
by whatshisface 5y ago
>by ceding the properties to someone who will actually rent out the units, or buy it and actually live there.
Unfortunately, the vacancies I am describing are unavoidable, because people do not rent apartments forever and empty apartments cannot instantly be leased.
>there are conceivably financial institutions that would be willing to take the real estate off your hands
And pay the vacancy tax themselves? They'd be in the same position as the previous owners.
- LordDragonfang 5y agoIf the taxes are not the obvious hyperbole of 1M/day, there are equilibrium options which result in the scenarios I laid out - and even accepting that ridiculous premise, there is the escape hatch for giving it the federal government the day-of, who obviously don't care about paying taxes to themselves. The point is that there are logical paths where even punitive (or intentionally ridiculous) levels of vacancy taxes result in a decrease in real prices.
- whatshisface 5y ago>there are equilibrium options which result in the scenarios I laid out Yes, but they are that the tenants pay the taxes. Capitalists are free to move their money anywhere they want to keep the return on investment up, but people must live somewhere.
- banannaise 4y agoAn owner-occupier would naturally not have to worry about vacancy taxes. If you are a landlord, can't afford the vacancy tax, and would lose money on tenancy, eventually your most efficient option is to simply give away the home to someone who will happily take it.