4 ms·

> A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed This is a bad analogy because an income tax is su

by yonran 4y ago

> A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed This is a bad analogy because an income tax is supposed to be for raising revenue, and it is generally understood that it should not be too high that it discourages too much economic activity. On the other hand, the Proposition M vacancy tax is explicitly intended to “disincentivize prolonged vacancies” by taxing up to $20k per unit per year (https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/tax-keeping-residential-units-vacant https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/tax-keeping-residentia...), which the plaintiffs argue violates the Ellis Act which says that homeowners have the right not to be in the business of being a landlord (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/small-realty-vs-san-francisco-complaint-.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/sm...).

camgunz 4y ago
> On the other hand, the Proposition M vacancy tax is explicitly intended to “disincentivize prolonged vacancies” Disincentivizing (hopefully not an actual word) is not compulsion. > the plaintiffs argue violates the Ellis Act which says that homeowners have the right not to be in the business of being a landlord This may be true; my legal knowledge is limited to being overzealously pre-law so I'm not an expert in CA law. That said, this sounds like a stupid law corrupted by landlords to duck housing rental regulations... OK checked Wikipedia and that's confirmed. Anyway I don't dispute this claim, just the Takings Clause argument, which again is very very bad.
quantified 4y ago
Wouldn't renting the unit out be economic activity (rent flows to landlord, household does house things, definitely economic)? Seems to discourage the lack thereof.
- yonran 4y ago
  Yes, the vacancy tax encourages economic activity, which is the opposite of the income tax which has a side-effect of reducing economic activity. Another reason that camgunz’s analogy is flawed. According to the plaintiffs, the problem with the vacancy tax is that the city is not supposed to force homeowners into the business of renting that they do not want (Ellis Act https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=12.75.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...). It is similar to the Obamacare individual mandate, which also forced people to enter the marketplace, which Congress is not allowed to do by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. But in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the US Supreme Court said that the individual mandate is just a tax and not a compelled transaction, since “It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment in Drexel Furniture” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/)
  - camgunz 4y ago
    > Yes, the vacancy tax encourages economic activity, which is the opposite of the income tax which has a side-effect of reducing economic activity. I feel like everyone replying with some version of "well actually taxes do disincentivize blah blah blah" is responding to someone else. Taxation is not compulsion. I'll say it as many times as I have to. > It is similar to the Obamacare individual mandate, which also forced people to enter the marketplace Here it is again. Taxing someone if they don't do something is not forcing them to do that thing. The case you cite says so! National affirmed Federal power to tax behavior or non behavior. It supports, rather than undercuts my argument. > Another reason that camgunz’s analogy is flawed. My point with taxes is that oftentimes the main goal is to raise revenue or address an externality. That's actually what the income tax does and what this tax does as well. The income tax (and payroll taxes) addresses income inequality and uses the proceeds to build a social safety net. SFGate notes that the vacancy tax in Vancouver helped to lower vacancy rates and funds affordable housing initiatives. Also Vancouver's vacancy rate is greater than zero! Looks like no one's being forced to do anything. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-San-Francisco-16822916.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes...

by yonran 4y ago

camgunz 4y ago

> On the other hand, the Proposition M vacancy tax is explicitly intended to “disincentivize prolonged vacancies” Disincentivizing (hopefully not an actual word) is not compulsion. > the plaintiffs argue violates the Ellis Act which says that homeowners have the right not to be in the business of being a landlord This may be true; my legal knowledge is limited to being overzealously pre-law so I'm not an expert in CA law. That said, this sounds like a stupid law corrupted by landlords to duck housing rental regulations... OK checked Wikipedia and that's confirmed. Anyway I don't dispute this claim, just the Takings Clause argument, which again is very very bad.

quantified 4y ago

Wouldn't renting the unit out be economic activity (rent flows to landlord, household does house things, definitely economic)? Seems to discourage the lack thereof.

yonran 4y ago
Yes, the vacancy tax encourages economic activity, which is the opposite of the income tax which has a side-effect of reducing economic activity. Another reason that camgunz’s analogy is flawed. According to the plaintiffs, the problem with the vacancy tax is that the city is not supposed to force homeowners into the business of renting that they do not want (Ellis Act https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=12.75.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...). It is similar to the Obamacare individual mandate, which also forced people to enter the marketplace, which Congress is not allowed to do by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. But in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the US Supreme Court said that the individual mandate is just a tax and not a compelled transaction, since “It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment in Drexel Furniture” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/)
- camgunz 4y ago
  > Yes, the vacancy tax encourages economic activity, which is the opposite of the income tax which has a side-effect of reducing economic activity. I feel like everyone replying with some version of "well actually taxes do disincentivize blah blah blah" is responding to someone else. Taxation is not compulsion. I'll say it as many times as I have to. > It is similar to the Obamacare individual mandate, which also forced people to enter the marketplace Here it is again. Taxing someone if they don't do something is not forcing them to do that thing. The case you cite says so! National affirmed Federal power to tax behavior or non behavior. It supports, rather than undercuts my argument. > Another reason that camgunz’s analogy is flawed. My point with taxes is that oftentimes the main goal is to raise revenue or address an externality. That's actually what the income tax does and what this tax does as well. The income tax (and payroll taxes) addresses income inequality and uses the proceeds to build a social safety net. SFGate notes that the vacancy tax in Vancouver helped to lower vacancy rates and funds affordable housing initiatives. Also Vancouver's vacancy rate is greater than zero! Looks like no one's being forced to do anything. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-San-Francisco-16822916.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes...