6 ms·

The rebuttal you're probably going to hear about this is how this will inordinately punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property.

The rebuttal you're probably going to hear about this is how this will inordinately punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property. We do ultimately need some amount of rentals and those need to be affordable - if the investment property has the hell taxed out of that's going straight to the renter. I say this in an effort to try to point out it's a complicated issue, I in no way support the current large investor predatory housing market.

itake 4y ago
Maybe we should just end the home rental market. You either rent an apartment or buy a house.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  That seems terrible for consumers
  - itake 4y ago
    Why?
- vlunkr 4y ago
  What if there are no apartments in your area? Or you have a large family but can’t get a mortgage at the moment? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to rent a home.
  - itake 4y ago
    cities should build them and setup public transit at them.
    - vlunkr 4y ago
      Ideally yes, but it’s a massive undertaking.
- acuozzo 4y ago
  If it were ended, then what would happen to homeowners who need to move now, but can't sell their home due to market conditions?
  - itake 4y ago
    They still face that decision in the current system. Even if you tried to keep the property, you are still losing time and money. Some people are also just unlucky on market timing.
- harshalizee 4y ago
  That would be disastrous for families with multiple kids. They may not be able to afford to buy, but able to rent. Forcing them all into an apartment can be chaotic.
  - itake 4y ago
    At least in Seattle, renting an apartment is cheaper than owning a home.
kahrl 4y ago
Nobody said "the hell" taxed out of anything. Conversation is completely shut down by these dumb Devil's advocate takes before anyone talks details such as a graduated tax rate.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  >> substantially higher rate Is a nice way of saying "tax the hell out of it".
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Ok, so my choice of wording is poor, but I'm not trying to do a devil's advocate take, I'm trying to talk about the breadth of the issue. What would you like to see with this? Do you think people should own second rental properties? If so, what does "a substantially higher rate" mean to you that stops investors with deep pockets from investing but not regular people? If people shouldn't own a second property, then why not flagrantly tax them? But then where do renters go?
larsiusprime 4y ago
> If the investment property has the hell taxed out of that's going straight to the renter Not if you exempt the value of the building from taxation and focus the tax exclusively on the value of the underlying land. This has been empirically demonstrated in multiple studies: http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenants http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenant...
affinepplan 4y ago
> how this will inordinately punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property. Good. Properties should not be investments.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  As I've said in other places - rental properties will always be required. Not everyone is in a position where they can or should own their own home.
  - hooverd 4y ago
    Public developer to the rescue.
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
    The government should provide housing in those cases.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      The government takes over the entirety of the rental market? There's over 100 million people in the United States who rent.
      - forgotusername6 4y ago
        The government should step in when the rental market is failing to deliver for the people i.e. when rents become unaffordable due to lack of supply. They can step in with zoning law changes but they can also step in with direct competition.
    - njarboe 4y ago
      Maybe works in some countries. Government housing in the US is awful.
- dixie_land 4y ago
nicoburns 4y ago
> The rebuttal you're probably going to hear about this is how this will inordinately punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property. Why would it be desirable to encourage private citizens to use property as an investment? I mean, they'd perhaps need to be a one-time easing to ensure that people who have already planned their retirement around such a scheme aren't completely fucked over. But long term it seems to me that there's no downside to this being punished.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Ultimately some people do need a place to rent to live. I saw someone else suggest that rentals are only allowed in apartments, maybe that solves this, but rentals are a vital part of the housing equation.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Right, but people don't need to be making money out of that. I think you could set the tax rates so that people basically break even (make a small profit) from renting a house out, and they actually lose money if they hold on to a house they're not renting out (with some carefully worded time-limited exceptions for houses under renovation). That would drive down house prices sharpish! You could also allow the state to step in as owners of rental housing where private landlords aren't making enough rental houses available. And if the state actually built houses for rental you likely wouldn't need as harsh taxation because the rental prices would drop purely through the increased supply.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      What stops the landlord from raising the rent? All the landlords will be under the same pressure, so rent should rise universally.
      - jfghi 4y ago
        They do that anyways.
flavius29663 4y ago
> punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property Second property should be taxed a little bit more. 3rd much more, 4th much much more etc. > has the hell taxed out of that's going straight to the renter That can be said about anything that has taxes on it: it goes back to punish the final consumer, but in the end it's worth trying to correct the market, be it cigarettes or homes for investment.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I suppose the difference there is that by and large people who find the new tax too onerous can reduce their cigarette consumption or even stop smoking altogether, but people can't just stop renting their home.
  - flavius29663 4y ago
    well yes, but you're still allowing cheap second house, but not third. This means more middle class people can buy an investment home, but they will have to stop there, discouraging landlords with a huge stock of houses. You don't want to discourage investment in houses, just oligopolies/monopolies on the housing stock, and also unoccupied houses.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Why is this bad? Private citizens buying up property to extract rents is also a problem.

itake 4y ago

Maybe we should just end the home rental market. You either rent an apartment or buy a house.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
That seems terrible for consumers
- itake 4y ago
  Why?
vlunkr 4y ago
What if there are no apartments in your area? Or you have a large family but can’t get a mortgage at the moment? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to rent a home.
- itake 4y ago
  cities should build them and setup public transit at them.
  - vlunkr 4y ago
    Ideally yes, but it’s a massive undertaking.
acuozzo 4y ago
If it were ended, then what would happen to homeowners who need to move now, but can't sell their home due to market conditions?
- itake 4y ago
  They still face that decision in the current system. Even if you tried to keep the property, you are still losing time and money. Some people are also just unlucky on market timing.
harshalizee 4y ago
That would be disastrous for families with multiple kids. They may not be able to afford to buy, but able to rent. Forcing them all into an apartment can be chaotic.
- itake 4y ago
  At least in Seattle, renting an apartment is cheaper than owning a home.

kahrl 4y ago

Nobody said "the hell" taxed out of anything. Conversation is completely shut down by these dumb Devil's advocate takes before anyone talks details such as a graduated tax rate.

bcrosby95 4y ago
>> substantially higher rate Is a nice way of saying "tax the hell out of it".
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Ok, so my choice of wording is poor, but I'm not trying to do a devil's advocate take, I'm trying to talk about the breadth of the issue. What would you like to see with this? Do you think people should own second rental properties? If so, what does "a substantially higher rate" mean to you that stops investors with deep pockets from investing but not regular people? If people shouldn't own a second property, then why not flagrantly tax them? But then where do renters go?

larsiusprime 4y ago

> If the investment property has the hell taxed out of that's going straight to the renter Not if you exempt the value of the building from taxation and focus the tax exclusively on the value of the underlying land. This has been empirically demonstrated in multiple studies: http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenants http://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenant...

affinepplan 4y ago

> how this will inordinately punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property. Good. Properties should not be investments.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
As I've said in other places - rental properties will always be required. Not everyone is in a position where they can or should own their own home.
- hooverd 4y ago
  Public developer to the rescue.
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  The government should provide housing in those cases.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    The government takes over the entirety of the rental market? There's over 100 million people in the United States who rent.
    - forgotusername6 4y ago
      The government should step in when the rental market is failing to deliver for the people i.e. when rents become unaffordable due to lack of supply. They can step in with zoning law changes but they can also step in with direct competition.
  - njarboe 4y ago
    Maybe works in some countries. Government housing in the US is awful.
dixie_land 4y ago

nicoburns 4y ago

> The rebuttal you're probably going to hear about this is how this will inordinately punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property. Why would it be desirable to encourage private citizens to use property as an investment? I mean, they'd perhaps need to be a one-time easing to ensure that people who have already planned their retirement around such a scheme aren't completely fucked over. But long term it seems to me that there's no downside to this being punished.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Ultimately some people do need a place to rent to live. I saw someone else suggest that rentals are only allowed in apartments, maybe that solves this, but rentals are a vital part of the housing equation.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Right, but people don't need to be making money out of that. I think you could set the tax rates so that people basically break even (make a small profit) from renting a house out, and they actually lose money if they hold on to a house they're not renting out (with some carefully worded time-limited exceptions for houses under renovation). That would drive down house prices sharpish! You could also allow the state to step in as owners of rental housing where private landlords aren't making enough rental houses available. And if the state actually built houses for rental you likely wouldn't need as harsh taxation because the rental prices would drop purely through the increased supply.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    What stops the landlord from raising the rent? All the landlords will be under the same pressure, so rent should rise universally.
    - jfghi 4y ago
      They do that anyways.

flavius29663 4y ago

> punish the private citizen buying a second home as an investment property Second property should be taxed a little bit more. 3rd much more, 4th much much more etc. > has the hell taxed out of that's going straight to the renter That can be said about anything that has taxes on it: it goes back to punish the final consumer, but in the end it's worth trying to correct the market, be it cigarettes or homes for investment.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
I suppose the difference there is that by and large people who find the new tax too onerous can reduce their cigarette consumption or even stop smoking altogether, but people can't just stop renting their home.
- flavius29663 4y ago
  well yes, but you're still allowing cheap second house, but not third. This means more middle class people can buy an investment home, but they will have to stop there, discouraging landlords with a huge stock of houses. You don't want to discourage investment in houses, just oligopolies/monopolies on the housing stock, and also unoccupied houses.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Why is this bad? Private citizens buying up property to extract rents is also a problem.