5 ms·

Tax the undesired behavior. Using housing as an _investment_ should be heavily taxed based on the behavior's negative impact to society. Live somewhere for at

Tax the undesired behavior. Using housing as an _investment_ should be heavily taxed based on the behavior's negative impact to society. Live somewhere for at least 35% of a year (more than 1/3rd), then most of that tax goes away since it's a 'primary residence'. (35% to allow for moving as well as possible 'sunbird' / 'winter/summer homes', while still catching anyone who treats housing as an 'investment' (a tax upon the poor))

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
b112 4y ago
So landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy, now raise rents dramatically? So the end result, the poor pay more? Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.
- tremon 4y ago
  landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy Why is that framing preferred over "landlords, who reduce housing supply by keeping properties off the market"?
  - ericd 4y ago
    They don't reduce housing supply. The same number of people are living in that building as would be if the building had been sold to them. If you want to get to the root of the problem, look at the development process. Start with your local zoning laws. It is insane how tightly prescriptive they are, usually, and they generally have lots of density-limiting provisions like mandatory parking, maximum floor to area ratios, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, etc. And then there's the planning/approval process.
    - rkangel 4y ago
      > They don't reduce housing supply They don't reduce housing supply for living, but they do reduce housing supply for owning. Normal people being able to own the house that they live in seems like a reasonable societal goal to me, but the current economic climate is making that harder and harder as houses move into the hands of landlords (private and commercial).
- lozenge 4y ago
  Landlords don't provide housing, buildings do. If they are taxed out of owning the building, they'll sell it to somebody who can live in it. Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Hotels, apartments, etc; things designed for such rentals should be in an entirely different category than (intended as single owner / dwelling) housing.
  - dan-robertson 4y ago
    So a block of flats should be intended to be either be all-renters or all-owners?
    - mjevans 4y ago
      Regulatory structures and methods of oversight differ. It also impacts civic planning, and as we're seeing in real time, inelastic market needs as the basis of an ''investment'', cause extreme inflation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

b112 4y ago

So landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy, now raise rents dramatically? So the end result, the poor pay more? Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.

tremon 4y ago
landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy Why is that framing preferred over "landlords, who reduce housing supply by keeping properties off the market"?
- ericd 4y ago
  They don't reduce housing supply. The same number of people are living in that building as would be if the building had been sold to them. If you want to get to the root of the problem, look at the development process. Start with your local zoning laws. It is insane how tightly prescriptive they are, usually, and they generally have lots of density-limiting provisions like mandatory parking, maximum floor to area ratios, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, etc. And then there's the planning/approval process.
  - rkangel 4y ago
    > They don't reduce housing supply They don't reduce housing supply for living, but they do reduce housing supply for owning. Normal people being able to own the house that they live in seems like a reasonable societal goal to me, but the current economic climate is making that harder and harder as houses move into the hands of landlords (private and commercial).
lozenge 4y ago
Landlords don't provide housing, buildings do. If they are taxed out of owning the building, they'll sell it to somebody who can live in it. Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.
mjevans 4y ago
Hotels, apartments, etc; things designed for such rentals should be in an entirely different category than (intended as single owner / dwelling) housing.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  So a block of flats should be intended to be either be all-renters or all-owners?
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Regulatory structures and methods of oversight differ. It also impacts civic planning, and as we're seeing in real time, inelastic market needs as the basis of an ''investment'', cause extreme inflation.