3 ms·

If you tax second homes, people will not buy these, not put them out for rent, and developers will build fewer real estate. This may only benefit if you have a

If you tax second homes, people will not buy these, not put them out for rent, and developers will build fewer real estate. This may only benefit if you have already borked your real estate market so that virtually nothing gets built anyway.

jmyeet 4y ago
If you believe this I'm afraid that you have successfully been brainwashed by Atlas Shrugged propaganda that dominates American politics. It is the idea that we have to kowtow to bosses ("capitalists") otherwise they won't provide those jobs or will leave. It's a ridiculou snotion. The only thing that will stop capitalists doing capitalism is that it won't be profitable. In a lot of places we aren't building things because we can't (eg in most of the US it is quite literally illegal to build anything other than SFHs) and what we are building in a lot of places isn't aimed at normal people (eg the ultra-luxury skinny-tall towers in Manhattan).
- gruez 4y ago
  >It is the idea that we have to kowtow to bosses ("capitalists") otherwise they won't provide those jobs or will leave. It's a ridiculou snotion. You have to "kowtow" to capitalists because they control resources which are required for new housing to get built. Nothing will change that short of a full communist revolution, which most people aren't too keen on. >The only thing that will stop capitalists doing capitalism is that it won't be profitable. >In a lot of places we aren't building things because we can't (eg in most of the US it is quite literally illegal to build anything other than SFHs) and what we are building in a lot of places isn't aimed at normal people (eg the ultra-luxury skinny-tall towers in Manhattan). You got cause and effect reversed. The reason why only luxury apartments/houses are being built in those areas is because the land value/zoning means that the only rich people can pay those prices, and they want luxury homes. Mandating that only crappy homes can be built doesn't really fix the issue, because rich people will still buy those homes and renovate it themselves to make it luxury.
ilammy 4y ago
> If you tax second homes, people will not buy these, not put them out for rent Which is exactly the point of the policy. If the society recognizes that private landlordship is net negative like smoking, it’s expected to be regulated out of existence. Why should people wanting to buy a second home be given priority over people wanting to buy their first, from the moral stance?
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Why would society "recognize" that? What's the reasoning behind it? What'w the criteria for it being a "private" landlordship? Can you just register a shell company? PG spent a lot of time explaining how easy it should be to register and run a company. Are you advocating for red tape and regulatory capture here?

jmyeet 4y ago

If you believe this I'm afraid that you have successfully been brainwashed by Atlas Shrugged propaganda that dominates American politics. It is the idea that we have to kowtow to bosses ("capitalists") otherwise they won't provide those jobs or will leave. It's a ridiculou snotion. The only thing that will stop capitalists doing capitalism is that it won't be profitable. In a lot of places we aren't building things because we can't (eg in most of the US it is quite literally illegal to build anything other than SFHs) and what we are building in a lot of places isn't aimed at normal people (eg the ultra-luxury skinny-tall towers in Manhattan).

gruez 4y ago
>It is the idea that we have to kowtow to bosses ("capitalists") otherwise they won't provide those jobs or will leave. It's a ridiculou snotion. You have to "kowtow" to capitalists because they control resources which are required for new housing to get built. Nothing will change that short of a full communist revolution, which most people aren't too keen on. >The only thing that will stop capitalists doing capitalism is that it won't be profitable. >In a lot of places we aren't building things because we can't (eg in most of the US it is quite literally illegal to build anything other than SFHs) and what we are building in a lot of places isn't aimed at normal people (eg the ultra-luxury skinny-tall towers in Manhattan). You got cause and effect reversed. The reason why only luxury apartments/houses are being built in those areas is because the land value/zoning means that the only rich people can pay those prices, and they want luxury homes. Mandating that only crappy homes can be built doesn't really fix the issue, because rich people will still buy those homes and renovate it themselves to make it luxury.

ilammy 4y ago

> If you tax second homes, people will not buy these, not put them out for rent Which is exactly the point of the policy. If the society recognizes that private landlordship is net negative like smoking, it’s expected to be regulated out of existence. Why should people wanting to buy a second home be given priority over people wanting to buy their first, from the moral stance?

thriftwy 4y ago
Why would society "recognize" that? What's the reasoning behind it? What'w the criteria for it being a "private" landlordship? Can you just register a shell company? PG spent a lot of time explaining how easy it should be to register and run a company. Are you advocating for red tape and regulatory capture here?