3 ms·

And are they going to take their existing houses and beam them up to the Starship Enterprise? Or are they going to let them rot empty, while paying those same t

by vkou 3y ago

And are they going to take their existing houses and beam them up to the Starship Enterprise? Or are they going to let them rot empty, while paying those same taxes and maintenance on them? ... Or do you think they will let them out for whatever they can get? Houses aren't a soccer ball, you can't pack them up and leave if you don't like the playing field. It's weird how whenever houses are the topic of discussion, people seem to think that economics should only work in one direction.

WalterBright 3y ago
For existing buildings, landlords who lose money on them will stop doing maintenance and repairs, and they'll eventually become slums or will be abandoned. Look what happened to Detroit. Additionally, no new housing will be built.
- vkou 3y ago
  > For existing buildings, landlords who lose money on them will stop doing maintenance and repairs, and they'll eventually become slums or will be abandoned. Ah, so because expenses temporarily exceed revenue on your million-dollar investment, you'll just let it rot down to zero? What happened in Detroit was a collapse in demand of housing, caused by a collapse in employment. That collapse and reduction in the tax base lead to a death spiral, as a city's infrastructure costs are fixed - which pushed further marginal demand out. You know what didn't happen in Detroit? A housing collapse because of a 20-cent-per-thousand-dollar property tax levy. No town can survive a collapse in employment. The coastal cities with 11 job openings for 10 people who are fighting over 9 apartments aren't suffering from that problem, and it's ridiculous to point at Detroit as a comparison. And if you think a 3% tax increase for landlords is 'massive', how would you describe the 20-40% increase in rents? If the poor landlords shouldn't be subjected to such a horrific thing, shouldn't the tenants be protected from ballooning rents?
- klyrs 3y ago
  > Additionally, no new housing will be built. If only the city could step in and ensure that new housing would be built. Oh wait, that's the purpose of the housing levy.

by vkou 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago

For existing buildings, landlords who lose money on them will stop doing maintenance and repairs, and they'll eventually become slums or will be abandoned. Look what happened to Detroit. Additionally, no new housing will be built.

vkou 3y ago
> For existing buildings, landlords who lose money on them will stop doing maintenance and repairs, and they'll eventually become slums or will be abandoned. Ah, so because expenses temporarily exceed revenue on your million-dollar investment, you'll just let it rot down to zero? What happened in Detroit was a collapse in demand of housing, caused by a collapse in employment. That collapse and reduction in the tax base lead to a death spiral, as a city's infrastructure costs are fixed - which pushed further marginal demand out. You know what didn't happen in Detroit? A housing collapse because of a 20-cent-per-thousand-dollar property tax levy. No town can survive a collapse in employment. The coastal cities with 11 job openings for 10 people who are fighting over 9 apartments aren't suffering from that problem, and it's ridiculous to point at Detroit as a comparison. And if you think a 3% tax increase for landlords is 'massive', how would you describe the 20-40% increase in rents? If the poor landlords shouldn't be subjected to such a horrific thing, shouldn't the tenants be protected from ballooning rents?
klyrs 3y ago
> Additionally, no new housing will be built. If only the city could step in and ensure that new housing would be built. Oh wait, that's the purpose of the housing levy.