3 ms·

So the problem is not that they keep the prices high, but that the cost of not making a deal is neglible. So the correct action would be to introduce cost for

So the problem is not that they keep the prices high, but that the cost of not making a deal is neglible. So the correct action would be to introduce cost for keeping units unrented. Personally I'd go with probabilistic approach and just penalize owning large amount of property because the more you have the higher chance is you are letting some of it go unrented. And property ownership is way easier to check than determining if some property is occupied or not.

bobthepanda 3y ago
There is also the fact that having some vacant unit across a large portfolio reduces profit and the tax bill on the units that are being rented out.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If they’re doing it to maximize their long-run profits, that will tend to maximize their long-run income taxes due as well.
WalterBright 3y ago
> So the correct action would be to introduce cost for keeping units unrented. There's already a cost of keeping them unrented - the loss of rental revenue. If you've ever tried to sell a house and had it sit vacant for months when trying to find a buyer, you'd find out about that cost.
- scotty79 3y ago
  > There's already a cost of keeping them unrented - the loss of rental revenue. Right. And observing the market shows us that this cost is too low. Why would I ever sell an empty unit if it appreciates in value faster than it costs me to keep it? Provided that I have no better opportunity to use that capital, which must often be the case. If you need capital it's another story. But even in case of a single home, the fact that you can sit on it for months instead of lowering the sale price means it's to cheap to keep it if you don't need it.