3 ms·

That's backwards because it would torpedo the economy of building and operating rental apartments. You really want the opposite: a special tax for owner-occupie

• gen220 3y ago
  Fine, you could limit the tax to buildings identified as single and multi-family homes? Most of those 60% are not living in rental apartments. What it would do is reduce the property value of existing real estate supply (by making expected cash flow from renting far less profitable), effectively forcing nonresident owners to sell their buildings to would-be renters, who would now be able to afford a mortgage on their homes. My thesis, fwiw, is that there's actually a sufficient supply of housing, it's just cornered with artificially inflated prices by people who treat housing as an investment vehicle rather than, well, housing.
• scottyah 3y ago
  "Existing supply" has nothing to do with building the apartment rentals, though the apartment operations economy would get hit and they might have to actually do some work somewhere. I believe the parent comment is about how many houses are stagnant because the owners have long since moved out, don't want to do any upgrades, and just cash checks from the next generation that has nowhere to buy since all the houses are rented out. I'm a bit bitter because there's so much of this around where I live, and it's just sad they're systemically incentivized to keep the next generations renting forever.
  • bluGill 3y ago
    Existing supply has a lot to do with building new. It is a very important input in the consideration if you will build. Too many vacant units and you are at risk of values going down and not making your investment work. Too few vacant units and you know there is demand so you should build.