4 ms·

The fact that you're actually presenting a reasonable solution and you're being downvoted shows how much capitalist propaganda has poluted the mainstream. Eith

by mihaic 4y ago

The fact that you're actually presenting a reasonable solution and you're being downvoted shows how much capitalist propaganda has poluted the mainstream. Either that, or the majority of people here are real estate speculators, which I very much doubt.

nullc 4y ago
I think you might be reading the post differently from the people downvoting it. Why would punitively taxing vacation homes, which are almost always outside of urban / dense-surban locations where there is little housing market congestion and where building additional housing units is straight forward -- do anything to help things? Why would punitively taxing the "ultra-luxury housing supply" do anything substantial for the issue being discussed? To me, these points made the post sound like a class-war rallying cry rather than an effort at reasonable solutions. Punitively taxing housing used by the wealthy isn't going to address the issue-- even if its successful at driving them out of the area there are so few that it wont make a dent in the market. I'm disappointed in the lack of creativity in the proposals people advance. How about in regions where density is already over some threshold large employers should be required to have at least some threshold of their role qualified office workers working remotely? Remote workers can consume less square footage (less office space, less parking) and can locate themselves outside of the highest demand locations. Surely there must be other alternatives other than just the density treadmill. While increasing density can also be a useful tool, it has the unfortunate effect of making the property even more valuable which works counter to the goal of affordability. In California we should end the prop 13 windfall for rental properties, and at the very least allow rental properties taxes to rise with rental rates. Current policy can create weird effects like houses where if they were sold the increase in taxes would be comparable to the current rent, which essentially locks them into being rental... and even when it's not that extreme it creates a significant advantage in favor of long-time landlords vs recent buyers.
- mihaic 4y ago
  As in most real-world scenarios, multiple solutions are needed, and it's best to first agree on the goal you want. To me these would be more availability while also disincentivising real estate as an investment vehicle. I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment), but there really is no other way I see.
  - nullc 4y ago
    "Second homes" isn't targeted. Many (most?) second homes aren't investments-- they're vacation homes, in places which aren't hot markets, and will almost certainly lose money compared to just sticking it in a broad market ETF (even with the home leveraged via a mortgage). > I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment), Most states have substantially lower and/or increase restricted property taxes for a single owner occupied home, so I don't think you can say that taxing investment properties at a higher rate than owner occupied properties a direction people don't agree on, generally. (California is weird in that it restricts tax increases for all properties, including commercial). One problem you run into is that most investment properties are rented out and increased taxes on them will be passed onto the tenants, so any increased taxes on these properties is arguably regressive since the tenants tend to be a lower income part of the population.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
The only reasonable solution to housing is building more houses. Everything else is either misguided or a purposeful attempt to make housing cheaper for a small subset of people at the expense of everyone else(rent control).

by mihaic 4y ago

nullc 4y ago

I think you might be reading the post differently from the people downvoting it. Why would punitively taxing vacation homes, which are almost always outside of urban / dense-surban locations where there is little housing market congestion and where building additional housing units is straight forward -- do anything to help things? Why would punitively taxing the "ultra-luxury housing supply" do anything substantial for the issue being discussed? To me, these points made the post sound like a class-war rallying cry rather than an effort at reasonable solutions. Punitively taxing housing used by the wealthy isn't going to address the issue-- even if its successful at driving them out of the area there are so few that it wont make a dent in the market. I'm disappointed in the lack of creativity in the proposals people advance. How about in regions where density is already over some threshold large employers should be required to have at least some threshold of their role qualified office workers working remotely? Remote workers can consume less square footage (less office space, less parking) and can locate themselves outside of the highest demand locations. Surely there must be other alternatives other than just the density treadmill. While increasing density can also be a useful tool, it has the unfortunate effect of making the property even more valuable which works counter to the goal of affordability. In California we should end the prop 13 windfall for rental properties, and at the very least allow rental properties taxes to rise with rental rates. Current policy can create weird effects like houses where if they were sold the increase in taxes would be comparable to the current rent, which essentially locks them into being rental... and even when it's not that extreme it creates a significant advantage in favor of long-time landlords vs recent buyers.

mihaic 4y ago
As in most real-world scenarios, multiple solutions are needed, and it's best to first agree on the goal you want. To me these would be more availability while also disincentivising real estate as an investment vehicle. I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment), but there really is no other way I see.
- nullc 4y ago
  "Second homes" isn't targeted. Many (most?) second homes aren't investments-- they're vacation homes, in places which aren't hot markets, and will almost certainly lose money compared to just sticking it in a broad market ETF (even with the home leveraged via a mortgage). > I know that's not a direction most people agree on (hitting real estate as an investment), Most states have substantially lower and/or increase restricted property taxes for a single owner occupied home, so I don't think you can say that taxing investment properties at a higher rate than owner occupied properties a direction people don't agree on, generally. (California is weird in that it restricts tax increases for all properties, including commercial). One problem you run into is that most investment properties are rented out and increased taxes on them will be passed onto the tenants, so any increased taxes on these properties is arguably regressive since the tenants tend to be a lower income part of the population.

HDThoreaun 4y ago

The only reasonable solution to housing is building more houses. Everything else is either misguided or a purposeful attempt to make housing cheaper for a small subset of people at the expense of everyone else(rent control).