4 ms·

Just need to disincentivise using housing for investment. For example a tax penalty for 2nd home, with higher penalties for subsequent home. Have federal level

Just need to disincentivise using housing for investment. For example a tax penalty for 2nd home, with higher penalties for subsequent home. Have federal level zoning control to disallow nimbyism. Penalize airbnb in areas that have housing shortages with higher taxes.

Grimburger 4y ago
Why not just build more houses to meet demand rather than try to artificially lower it?
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Larger than otherwise boom bust cycles and entrenched interests (as noted above by another commenter). Edit to add: This would not really lower demand, it would just shift it. A major consequence would be a decrease in single-family homes for rent. If there wasn't a consequent increase in single-family buyers, then this would lead to mass unit housing owned by fewer landlords (less competition). I personally favor regulatory innovations encouraging rent-to-own or other mechanisms that encourage home ownership, while making it relatively easy to move if a job demands it. Something like automatic mortgages that a buyer can 'default' on if they need to move, but said 'default' not hitting their credit rating much as it's effectively just turning over the house in good condition to the mortgage holder to resell to the next tenant. With the mortgage payments already paid being split in some way between the moving out tenant and the mortgage company. Alternatively, if you stay until your mortgage is paid off, you own it outright. I am definitely not a real estate or credit expert, and I'm sure such a system would be difficult to implement, but it probably wouldn't be impossible to implement.
- zip1234 4y ago
  What do you mean artificially lower it? Removing zoning restrictions would allow actually building more homes where they are desired. The government does not need to throw money at a problem where the solution is completely free and rather simple.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Grimburger 4y ago

Why not just build more houses to meet demand rather than try to artificially lower it?

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Larger than otherwise boom bust cycles and entrenched interests (as noted above by another commenter). Edit to add: This would not really lower demand, it would just shift it. A major consequence would be a decrease in single-family homes for rent. If there wasn't a consequent increase in single-family buyers, then this would lead to mass unit housing owned by fewer landlords (less competition). I personally favor regulatory innovations encouraging rent-to-own or other mechanisms that encourage home ownership, while making it relatively easy to move if a job demands it. Something like automatic mortgages that a buyer can 'default' on if they need to move, but said 'default' not hitting their credit rating much as it's effectively just turning over the house in good condition to the mortgage holder to resell to the next tenant. With the mortgage payments already paid being split in some way between the moving out tenant and the mortgage company. Alternatively, if you stay until your mortgage is paid off, you own it outright. I am definitely not a real estate or credit expert, and I'm sure such a system would be difficult to implement, but it probably wouldn't be impossible to implement.
zip1234 4y ago
What do you mean artificially lower it? Removing zoning restrictions would allow actually building more homes where they are desired. The government does not need to throw money at a problem where the solution is completely free and rather simple.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]