4 ms·

Would be better addressed via taxes. There should be a surtax for property that is not actively utilized the majority of any year.

scotty79 3y ago
Utilization is hard to measure or proove. What if someone uses a house as his furniture storage?
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  Not really. Utility usage would be a good proxy to catch cheats.
- crmd 3y ago
  Furniture storage is for commercially zoned property, not for homes that someone could be living in.
- joe-collins 3y ago
  We already have the concept of a primary residence. I'd strongly support laws that impose fast-ramping tax burdens on further ownership. Possibly with a more modesty burden for a second home—say, a family purchasing one to pass to children, or preparing for retirement—but I don't feel that there's any acceptable reason for owning several homes.
  - davidrupp 3y ago
    Why do you not think there’s any acceptable reason for owning several homes?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - michaelt 3y ago
      Perhaps joe-collins supports a steep tax discount on a first home - much like a society might apply a lower tax rate on books and apples than on Lamborghinis.
      - davidrupp 3y ago
        Perhaps followed by progressively higher tax rates on subsequent books and apples?
        henry2023 3y ago
        If Apples were: 1. Essential to live 2. Considered a human right 3. Not accessible to >90% of the next generation 4. Being hoarded Yeah, fast progressively higher tax rates based on the number of apples you own would be perfectly reasonable.
        davidrupp 3y ago
        Okay. [citation needed] on all of the above.
        genocidicbunny 3y ago
        1 is pretty easy to experimentally deduce -- simply go live outdoors wherever you are. Skip the tent, that's housing too. Just make yourself a little bedding spot in a tree somewhere like our ancestors did. Pretty sure in most of the world, you wouldn't last long without some form of shelter or housing.
        davidrupp 3y ago
        Who is the number one “hoarder” of houses in the U.S.? When I bought my house, all I had to deal with (as far as I know) was the bank and the prior owner, who seemed happy to sell.
        kbelder 3y ago
        >If Apples were: 1. Essential to live 2. Considered a human right 3. Not accessible to >90% of the next generation 90% of the next generation is going to die from homelessness?
    - henry2023 3y ago
      Because your "right" of owning several homes goes against the human right of adequate housing. Jurisprudence tells you the order of rights and human rights come first.
      - Ferret7446 3y ago
        Why should someone have a right to a house built by someone else? Just because someone else doesn't have a house doesn't mean they get to take a house that you built even if you already have a house.
      - sethd 3y ago
        It’s funny that you use quotes around “right” when referring to property rights, which are well established as natural rights. All while making the claim that adequate housing is some kind of fundamental human right. It might be a government benefit in some places, but it’s hardly a human right. If housing is a right, then it would make more sense to list the things that are not human rights. What else, Diet Coke delivered daily? Maybe a new car?
        ajhurliman 3y ago
        That one always blows my mind when people drop “housing is a human right”. So everyone has an inalienable right to the property and labor of another person? What if you were in John Locke’s state of nature and you were not participating in any social contract, would you still have that right?
        agalunar 3y ago
        But all rights are made up – they're simply things that we think are really important to provide each other. I can only assume that when a person says "housing is a human right", they mean "housing is something important enough that I think we should guarantee access to it". If someone says something that seems ridiculous, but they're speaking seriously, sincerely, or about a matter they've given some thought, then there might be a chance you're simply misunderstanding them. Tangentially: "an inalienable right to the property and labor of another person" is not that ridiculous of an idea. You already have a right to the labor of other people in nearly every society on earth. If the people where you live pay taxes, and even if you didn't avail yourself of public roads and whatnot, you still enjoy having a court system and law enforcement to uphold your rights, you enjoy a military to defend your country, you may enjoy the stability of a currency, and so on, and (if you are a native citizen) you get all of this merely for having been born. [And people don't get to opt out – people have to pay taxes even if they want to live alone in the wilderness, and to be relieved of that burden, in the United States we have to pay a fee to renounce our citizenship, even assuming we have the means to emigrate.] If you think at only a slightly larger scale, you might view us all as being stuck on Earth together and all members of a global society, unable to avoid participating to at least some degree. [To be clear, I personally don't like the idea of owing anyone anything, especially when I presumably didn't choose to be born, but life is inherently unfair to begin with and also very difficult, so I can understand someone arguing that it's worth giving up the fight for a particular fairness in exchange for a better life overall. Also, other people may not have the same notions of fairness as me; I can imagine someone arguing that guaranteed access to housing makes the world more fair.] I'd agree that it would be ridiculous to claim housing is a "natural right" as opposed to a potential "legal right", since it's a contradiction almost definitionally. Although not everyone agrees that natural rights exist, or what they are precisely.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Sounds super complicated and easy to game. Instead of getting married I put the second home under my spouses name as a primary residence. What if an old person gets injured and moves in with family but there is a chance they can recover? Slam them with taxes for a second home? What if someone is on a temporary work assignment and buys a small place in another state for 2 years? What if someone is a traveling nurse and buys a couple small apartments in the cities they work? Sounds like a nightmare of exceptions and bureaucracy.
AlchemistCamp 3y ago
It would be far simpler to just make real estate taxes, particularly the land value portion, a larger portion of taxes in general. The only cost is assessment, which is already done, instead of an entire new bureaucracy keeping tabs on how much everyone utilizing each piece of property. In the extreme case, this scheme would be Georgism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
jbm 3y ago
> via taxes This has been trotted out for many different problems, and I have yet to see taxes resolve any issue they are supposed to fix. Carbon taxes don't reduce carbon use, fuel taxes don't reduce fuel use, sin taxes don't reduce soda consumption, cigarette taxes encourage black market activity, drug taxes don't reduce drug usage, etc... Indirect action, like taxes, are a shot off the bow. The next step is direct action. If the property is correctly maintained, a law-abiding squatter is preferable to a long-term absentee landlord who selfishly chooses to keep his or her house empty. It's a far greater loss to society to have the squatter as homeless. Buy NFTs if you want artificial scarcity. (This is different than my feelings about people who steal homes, such as in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547396 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547396)

scotty79 3y ago

Utilization is hard to measure or proove. What if someone uses a house as his furniture storage?

seizethecheese 3y ago
Not really. Utility usage would be a good proxy to catch cheats.
crmd 3y ago
Furniture storage is for commercially zoned property, not for homes that someone could be living in.
joe-collins 3y ago
We already have the concept of a primary residence. I'd strongly support laws that impose fast-ramping tax burdens on further ownership. Possibly with a more modesty burden for a second home—say, a family purchasing one to pass to children, or preparing for retirement—but I don't feel that there's any acceptable reason for owning several homes.
- davidrupp 3y ago
  Why do you not think there’s any acceptable reason for owning several homes?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Perhaps joe-collins supports a steep tax discount on a first home - much like a society might apply a lower tax rate on books and apples than on Lamborghinis.
    - davidrupp 3y ago
      Perhaps followed by progressively higher tax rates on subsequent books and apples?
      - henry2023 3y ago
        If Apples were: 1. Essential to live 2. Considered a human right 3. Not accessible to >90% of the next generation 4. Being hoarded Yeah, fast progressively higher tax rates based on the number of apples you own would be perfectly reasonable.
        davidrupp 3y ago
        Okay. [citation needed] on all of the above.
        genocidicbunny 3y ago
        1 is pretty easy to experimentally deduce -- simply go live outdoors wherever you are. Skip the tent, that's housing too. Just make yourself a little bedding spot in a tree somewhere like our ancestors did. Pretty sure in most of the world, you wouldn't last long without some form of shelter or housing.
        davidrupp 3y ago
        Who is the number one “hoarder” of houses in the U.S.? When I bought my house, all I had to deal with (as far as I know) was the bank and the prior owner, who seemed happy to sell.
        kbelder 3y ago
        >If Apples were: 1. Essential to live 2. Considered a human right 3. Not accessible to >90% of the next generation 90% of the next generation is going to die from homelessness?
  - henry2023 3y ago
    Because your "right" of owning several homes goes against the human right of adequate housing. Jurisprudence tells you the order of rights and human rights come first.
    - Ferret7446 3y ago
      Why should someone have a right to a house built by someone else? Just because someone else doesn't have a house doesn't mean they get to take a house that you built even if you already have a house.
    - sethd 3y ago
      It’s funny that you use quotes around “right” when referring to property rights, which are well established as natural rights. All while making the claim that adequate housing is some kind of fundamental human right. It might be a government benefit in some places, but it’s hardly a human right. If housing is a right, then it would make more sense to list the things that are not human rights. What else, Diet Coke delivered daily? Maybe a new car?
      - ajhurliman 3y ago
        That one always blows my mind when people drop “housing is a human right”. So everyone has an inalienable right to the property and labor of another person? What if you were in John Locke’s state of nature and you were not participating in any social contract, would you still have that right?
        agalunar 3y ago
        But all rights are made up – they're simply things that we think are really important to provide each other. I can only assume that when a person says "housing is a human right", they mean "housing is something important enough that I think we should guarantee access to it". If someone says something that seems ridiculous, but they're speaking seriously, sincerely, or about a matter they've given some thought, then there might be a chance you're simply misunderstanding them. Tangentially: "an inalienable right to the property and labor of another person" is not that ridiculous of an idea. You already have a right to the labor of other people in nearly every society on earth. If the people where you live pay taxes, and even if you didn't avail yourself of public roads and whatnot, you still enjoy having a court system and law enforcement to uphold your rights, you enjoy a military to defend your country, you may enjoy the stability of a currency, and so on, and (if you are a native citizen) you get all of this merely for having been born. [And people don't get to opt out – people have to pay taxes even if they want to live alone in the wilderness, and to be relieved of that burden, in the United States we have to pay a fee to renounce our citizenship, even assuming we have the means to emigrate.] If you think at only a slightly larger scale, you might view us all as being stuck on Earth together and all members of a global society, unable to avoid participating to at least some degree. [To be clear, I personally don't like the idea of owing anyone anything, especially when I presumably didn't choose to be born, but life is inherently unfair to begin with and also very difficult, so I can understand someone arguing that it's worth giving up the fight for a particular fairness in exchange for a better life overall. Also, other people may not have the same notions of fairness as me; I can imagine someone arguing that guaranteed access to housing makes the world more fair.] I'd agree that it would be ridiculous to claim housing is a "natural right" as opposed to a potential "legal right", since it's a contradiction almost definitionally. Although not everyone agrees that natural rights exist, or what they are precisely.
- refurb 3y ago
  Sounds super complicated and easy to game. Instead of getting married I put the second home under my spouses name as a primary residence. What if an old person gets injured and moves in with family but there is a chance they can recover? Slam them with taxes for a second home? What if someone is on a temporary work assignment and buys a small place in another state for 2 years? What if someone is a traveling nurse and buys a couple small apartments in the cities they work? Sounds like a nightmare of exceptions and bureaucracy.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

It would be far simpler to just make real estate taxes, particularly the land value portion, a larger portion of taxes in general. The only cost is assessment, which is already done, instead of an entire new bureaucracy keeping tabs on how much everyone utilizing each piece of property. In the extreme case, this scheme would be Georgism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

jbm 3y ago

> via taxes This has been trotted out for many different problems, and I have yet to see taxes resolve any issue they are supposed to fix. Carbon taxes don't reduce carbon use, fuel taxes don't reduce fuel use, sin taxes don't reduce soda consumption, cigarette taxes encourage black market activity, drug taxes don't reduce drug usage, etc... Indirect action, like taxes, are a shot off the bow. The next step is direct action. If the property is correctly maintained, a law-abiding squatter is preferable to a long-term absentee landlord who selfishly chooses to keep his or her house empty. It's a far greater loss to society to have the squatter as homeless. Buy NFTs if you want artificial scarcity. (This is different than my feelings about people who steal homes, such as in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547396 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547396)