5 ms·

Rather than targeting flipping, I think ownership of more than one housing unit should be taxed progressively and become prohibitive rapidly.

sokoloff 4y ago
Do you feel that renters should be punished economically (which I think would be an inevitable consequence of that policy)?
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  I think amount of renters would rapidly drop off.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I agree. Some to ownership. Others to homelessness.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      It depends on what facilities the country would provide. Assuming it's USA it's homelessness. If it was another country, it might be provided social housing.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        Why not skip the taxation and homelessness and just build the social housing?
        KptMarchewa 4y ago
        That's also an option, however, it does not remove enough profits from land ownership rent seeking.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > it does not remove enough profits from land ownership rent seeking You'd prefer to create excess misery to satisfy a sense of vengeance? Versus just solving the problem?
        KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Land ownership rent seeking creates misery. It should be curbed.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    What should people that expect/hope to move soon do?
    - carom 4y ago
      What should young and poor people who can't afford a down payment do?
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        rent...
        sokoloff 4y ago
        I think /u/carom agrees with you (that renting is the best choice for many), even if they don't realize it.
  - everforward 4y ago
    It's worth considering that some of us want to rent. I've moved for work a few times, so I rented because it wasn't worth the hassle of buying a house, living in it for 2 years, then selling it to move. Some people move to a big city to start a career, with the intentions of moving back towards home when they've cut their teeth. Having the option to rent is a good thing, being forced to rent when you don't want to is a bad thing. Hopefully we can accommodate both.
carom 4y ago
Under your scheme, if I own a property, it is cheaper for me to make it a single family home than to subdivide it into multiple units? Why are you punishing who make housing available to others? I rent out one single family home that I couldn't sell when I moved and a 4 unit building where I currently live in one of the units. I never understand these comments. The 4 unit building could be torn down and made a SFH or I could build 14 units which my city desperately needs. If you keep adding rent control and payment vacations and eviction moratoriums and taxes it will be a SFH. I think your dream is every property is tenancy in commons, but that is legal now and not popular. The reason is zoning. Rich people can compete with two families easily and by limiting the number of units that is all they need to compete with. Much more difficult to compete with 10 families if the lot is zoned for 10. Anyway, these policy suggestions are maniacal. Go buy and build housing and you'll see how much work it is. Make a startup that makes TiC and construction easier. Go change zoning laws.
- BuckRogers 4y ago
  Making construction easier just makes those guys lives easier, I doubt it'll result in more housing. Look at the red states with no regulations like Louisiana. They're terrible places to live. Nothing gets fixed with no/low regulation. I do think his idea about high taxes on a 2nd+ home makes sense. The only problem with it is that it doesn't apply globally, only nationally. You'll have rich people have a palace in the US, Spain, and Australia instead of 3 in the US. For my own life and approach to this, I moved around a lot and lived in austerity saving up money for a home. I don't want zoning laws to change at all because there's already too many multi-tenant buildings. Pull up the sex and gun offender maps, it's disproportionately those people. And I'm currently a tenant myself (while obeying the laws and having a clean record). I'd rather see taxes on 2nd+ homes than zoning change. We already built 'out' with suburbs and have plenty of land available for developers to build on and make money. With the internet we no longer have to all live in a city either. It seems to me like his idea, minus the global snag, is generally on the right track. But I am not a fan of multi-tenant housing near whatever home I purchase, just because of the sort of short-sighted people that often make up renters. They should be in homes anyway, not renting, in an ideal scenario.
downrightmike 4y ago
Both. And IRS penalties.

sokoloff 4y ago

Do you feel that renters should be punished economically (which I think would be an inevitable consequence of that policy)?

KptMarchewa 4y ago
I think amount of renters would rapidly drop off.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I agree. Some to ownership. Others to homelessness.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    It depends on what facilities the country would provide. Assuming it's USA it's homelessness. If it was another country, it might be provided social housing.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      Why not skip the taxation and homelessness and just build the social housing?
      - KptMarchewa 4y ago
        That's also an option, however, it does not remove enough profits from land ownership rent seeking.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > it does not remove enough profits from land ownership rent seeking You'd prefer to create excess misery to satisfy a sense of vengeance? Versus just solving the problem?
        KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Land ownership rent seeking creates misery. It should be curbed.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  What should people that expect/hope to move soon do?
  - carom 4y ago
    What should young and poor people who can't afford a down payment do?
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      rent...
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        I think /u/carom agrees with you (that renting is the best choice for many), even if they don't realize it.
- everforward 4y ago
  It's worth considering that some of us want to rent. I've moved for work a few times, so I rented because it wasn't worth the hassle of buying a house, living in it for 2 years, then selling it to move. Some people move to a big city to start a career, with the intentions of moving back towards home when they've cut their teeth. Having the option to rent is a good thing, being forced to rent when you don't want to is a bad thing. Hopefully we can accommodate both.

carom 4y ago

Under your scheme, if I own a property, it is cheaper for me to make it a single family home than to subdivide it into multiple units? Why are you punishing who make housing available to others? I rent out one single family home that I couldn't sell when I moved and a 4 unit building where I currently live in one of the units. I never understand these comments. The 4 unit building could be torn down and made a SFH or I could build 14 units which my city desperately needs. If you keep adding rent control and payment vacations and eviction moratoriums and taxes it will be a SFH. I think your dream is every property is tenancy in commons, but that is legal now and not popular. The reason is zoning. Rich people can compete with two families easily and by limiting the number of units that is all they need to compete with. Much more difficult to compete with 10 families if the lot is zoned for 10. Anyway, these policy suggestions are maniacal. Go buy and build housing and you'll see how much work it is. Make a startup that makes TiC and construction easier. Go change zoning laws.

BuckRogers 4y ago
Making construction easier just makes those guys lives easier, I doubt it'll result in more housing. Look at the red states with no regulations like Louisiana. They're terrible places to live. Nothing gets fixed with no/low regulation. I do think his idea about high taxes on a 2nd+ home makes sense. The only problem with it is that it doesn't apply globally, only nationally. You'll have rich people have a palace in the US, Spain, and Australia instead of 3 in the US. For my own life and approach to this, I moved around a lot and lived in austerity saving up money for a home. I don't want zoning laws to change at all because there's already too many multi-tenant buildings. Pull up the sex and gun offender maps, it's disproportionately those people. And I'm currently a tenant myself (while obeying the laws and having a clean record). I'd rather see taxes on 2nd+ homes than zoning change. We already built 'out' with suburbs and have plenty of land available for developers to build on and make money. With the internet we no longer have to all live in a city either. It seems to me like his idea, minus the global snag, is generally on the right track. But I am not a fan of multi-tenant housing near whatever home I purchase, just because of the sort of short-sighted people that often make up renters. They should be in homes anyway, not renting, in an ideal scenario.

downrightmike 4y ago

Both. And IRS penalties.