6 ms·

To me my house is worth a lot more than it is to the market because to me it has an emotional value. A mandatory buyout assumes that people do not have emotiona

To me my house is worth a lot more than it is to the market because to me it has an emotional value. A mandatory buyout assumes that people do not have emotional bonds with their homes. Do you suggest one adjusts their estimate of the value twice, or thrice as high to prevent a mandatory buyout? How is that fair to those people?

girvo 4y ago
I wonder if under that system the culture that leads to emotional connection to some particular spot of land and home on top of it would decline? It’s not universal worldwide to have the emotional connect we do to our homes
- tekknik 4y ago
  How would it? The emotional connection comes from the memories made in that home. You’re still raising kids, still growing up in these homes. So my guess is no.
Jiro 4y ago
You also end up taxing actual value that can only be used by one person. If your house is close to your job or your parents, or if your children or if your children have gone to school the previous 5 years in the neighborhood and don't want to leave their friends, you'd be willing to pay more to keep it. Now, you actually have to pay more to keep it. We shouldn't be taxing people on the fact that their house is near their job. And if they don't raise the price of their house, someone will eventually buy it at the market value of the house, and the value will simply have been destroyed.
- webstrand 4y ago
  It also sounds like a great way to harass people. Don't like your new black neighbor? Just force him out by buying his house for the tax price. Ideally he'll have a little more money than he started with, but I could see other social institutions, like trouble obtaining another loan, preventing the re-homing of "undesirables".
  - tekknik 4y ago
    You could’ve left the color of the skin of the neighbor out and still made your point. People of all skin colors face discrimination these days, not just blacks.
    - webstrand 4y ago
      I am curious why you called this out. Is there a social reason I should not use such specific examples in the future? In my mind, giving a concrete example that the reader has some familiarity with help them to develop the story in their mind. For example, one could misinterpret the neighbor as having the same socio-economic status, making it far less clear how losing the house but gaining an equitable amount of money causes hardship. And blacks specifically have been targeted by such policies in the past, so it's a lot easier to imagine how other social policies align to make becoming un-housed even more problematic for that neighbor.
  - avar 4y ago
    I think you and others in this thread are missing that the proposed mandatory bidding price is a multiple of the "real" value. So yeah, don't like your new neighbors who just bought a $500k home next to you, you can give them $1.5m (or whatever) to get their house. How are they now worse off exactly? That family can then probably buy the larger house next to yours for $1m, and have $500k in cash left over. A bank that was willing to give them a loan for a $500k house is less likely to do so when they've got an extra $1m in cash? The system the authors proposed is mainly intended as a clean way to get rid of things like eminent domain and the holdout problem. Most real estate transactions would take place between "willing" sellers and buyers, just like they do now.
    - Jiro 4y ago
      >I think you and others in this thread are missing that the proposed mandatory bidding price is a multiple of the "real" value. That doesn't work. People will set the "real" value to be lower than the real value, in order to reduce their taxes, but high enough that someone who wants to buy the house has to pay barely enough, after multiplying, to make it worthwhile to sell. The tax rates will then be raised accordingly and we'll just have "the mandatory bidding price is the real value" with extra steps.
- avar 4y ago
  You're just focusing on the downside without considering the upside. Maybe you want to go see a movie you've been dying to see tomorrow, and you've got your $100 tickets in hand. But there's someone else in the same situation, but they'd really like to see it. If a market exists they could offer you $1000, and you'd both be happier, as you can now afford something you'd prefer more than the $100 activity. The same goes for real estate, it's just a less liquid market currently.
benj111 4y ago
Or you could do the opposite. Declare a value of $1 and keep selling it between 2 people. House purchases aren't quick so you'd only need to do a few a year.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  Surely each offer round becomes a bidding round, rather than a simple purchase.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Surely each offer round becomes a bidding round, rather than a simple purchase. No: 1. There's no requirement to list the house - who would even know if you sold it twice a year? 2. There's no requirement that the seller has to take the highest offer. The other bidder will have to bid again next year when taxes are due.[1] [1] You can't set the tax based on what the bid is, because the bidder may not have the money (or may not be granted the bond) when time comes to actually do the transfer. The tax has to be based on what the actual selling price is.
avar 4y ago
You're assuming that emotional value cleanly maps to current real estate ownership. What if you'd like to re-purchase a house your family lost in the last recession, but which your family had been living in for generations? The status quo effectively leaves you without a recourse if the current owner isn't willing to sell, the system noted upthread assumes that emotional bonds to real estate can be priced.

girvo 4y ago

I wonder if under that system the culture that leads to emotional connection to some particular spot of land and home on top of it would decline? It’s not universal worldwide to have the emotional connect we do to our homes

tekknik 4y ago
How would it? The emotional connection comes from the memories made in that home. You’re still raising kids, still growing up in these homes. So my guess is no.

Jiro 4y ago

You also end up taxing actual value that can only be used by one person. If your house is close to your job or your parents, or if your children or if your children have gone to school the previous 5 years in the neighborhood and don't want to leave their friends, you'd be willing to pay more to keep it. Now, you actually have to pay more to keep it. We shouldn't be taxing people on the fact that their house is near their job. And if they don't raise the price of their house, someone will eventually buy it at the market value of the house, and the value will simply have been destroyed.

webstrand 4y ago
It also sounds like a great way to harass people. Don't like your new black neighbor? Just force him out by buying his house for the tax price. Ideally he'll have a little more money than he started with, but I could see other social institutions, like trouble obtaining another loan, preventing the re-homing of "undesirables".
- tekknik 4y ago
  You could’ve left the color of the skin of the neighbor out and still made your point. People of all skin colors face discrimination these days, not just blacks.
  - webstrand 4y ago
    I am curious why you called this out. Is there a social reason I should not use such specific examples in the future? In my mind, giving a concrete example that the reader has some familiarity with help them to develop the story in their mind. For example, one could misinterpret the neighbor as having the same socio-economic status, making it far less clear how losing the house but gaining an equitable amount of money causes hardship. And blacks specifically have been targeted by such policies in the past, so it's a lot easier to imagine how other social policies align to make becoming un-housed even more problematic for that neighbor.
- avar 4y ago
  I think you and others in this thread are missing that the proposed mandatory bidding price is a multiple of the "real" value. So yeah, don't like your new neighbors who just bought a $500k home next to you, you can give them $1.5m (or whatever) to get their house. How are they now worse off exactly? That family can then probably buy the larger house next to yours for $1m, and have $500k in cash left over. A bank that was willing to give them a loan for a $500k house is less likely to do so when they've got an extra $1m in cash? The system the authors proposed is mainly intended as a clean way to get rid of things like eminent domain and the holdout problem. Most real estate transactions would take place between "willing" sellers and buyers, just like they do now.
  - Jiro 4y ago
    >I think you and others in this thread are missing that the proposed mandatory bidding price is a multiple of the "real" value. That doesn't work. People will set the "real" value to be lower than the real value, in order to reduce their taxes, but high enough that someone who wants to buy the house has to pay barely enough, after multiplying, to make it worthwhile to sell. The tax rates will then be raised accordingly and we'll just have "the mandatory bidding price is the real value" with extra steps.
avar 4y ago
You're just focusing on the downside without considering the upside. Maybe you want to go see a movie you've been dying to see tomorrow, and you've got your $100 tickets in hand. But there's someone else in the same situation, but they'd really like to see it. If a market exists they could offer you $1000, and you'd both be happier, as you can now afford something you'd prefer more than the $100 activity. The same goes for real estate, it's just a less liquid market currently.

benj111 4y ago

Or you could do the opposite. Declare a value of $1 and keep selling it between 2 people. House purchases aren't quick so you'd only need to do a few a year.

LadyCailin 4y ago
Surely each offer round becomes a bidding round, rather than a simple purchase.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Surely each offer round becomes a bidding round, rather than a simple purchase. No: 1. There's no requirement to list the house - who would even know if you sold it twice a year? 2. There's no requirement that the seller has to take the highest offer. The other bidder will have to bid again next year when taxes are due.[1] [1] You can't set the tax based on what the bid is, because the bidder may not have the money (or may not be granted the bond) when time comes to actually do the transfer. The tax has to be based on what the actual selling price is.

avar 4y ago

You're assuming that emotional value cleanly maps to current real estate ownership. What if you'd like to re-purchase a house your family lost in the last recession, but which your family had been living in for generations? The status quo effectively leaves you without a recourse if the current owner isn't willing to sell, the system noted upthread assumes that emotional bonds to real estate can be priced.