4 ms·
I took their statement differently; rather, that they aren't concerned for the fallout of the Haves at the sacrifice for the HaveNots. I am uninformed in this
by lijogdfljk 4y ago
I took their statement differently; rather, that they aren't concerned for the fallout of the Haves at the sacrifice for the HaveNots.
I am uninformed in this game, so this is not a statement by me: However i've been told that one issue is squatters, land being used purely as investment and with low costs you can easily afford to buy land and squat it till a time when you later sell it in the market.
As someone looking to buy land to build a home on, i've noticed quite a lot of property seemingly being used purely for investment. Flipped through the years for profit with no real added value, in an area of the country (PNW) that is very, very expensive due to limited supply. It is very cheap to keep land, tens of dollars a year for 10 acres (the lot size i'm familiar with) iirc.
Inhibiting this behavior seems beneficial.
Though i imagine more interesting (than simply "high") taxes could help more. Ie something like a higher tax on unimproved and uninhabited land. Encourage usage, not squatting.
But.. i don't know anything here. I just have experience looking to buy land, and watching what goes up for sale.
- gedy 4y ago> Encourage usage, not squatting. Yes agreed, though I do think people conflate things and vilify wrong targets, which sounds a lot like the OP. E.g. in California it's en vogue to rail against "Prop 13" without considering why it was passed, or how it helps people on fixed incomes remain in their homes. , or more importantly how the financialization of homes has made things bad globally.
- zip1234 4y agoJust because it was passed for a good reason does not make it a good policy. Prop 13, whatever the good intentions, is a disaster and has created a modern landed gentry in California.