4 ms·

Or, take the non-liberation and crack down on the naked profiteering that is modern real estate. In many areas there appear to be lots of empty living units be

Or, take the non-liberation and crack down on the naked profiteering that is modern real estate. In many areas there appear to be lots of empty living units being kept as investments and second/fourth homes. Anyone owning an empty house or apartment should be taxed whatever amount it necessary to encourage them into at least renting that place out and thereby expanding the pool of available living units in the market.

returningfory2 3y ago
It doesn’t need to be either/or. We can simultaneously increase housing supply through new construction and disincentivize suboptimal uses of housing you describe.
anthonypasq 3y ago
why does everyone fail to understand that the reason real estate is an "investment" is because prices are skyrocketing because supply is artificially constrained. If we just built properly real estate wouldnt be such a great investment. My parents happened to buy their house in an area that wasnt super desirable and continued to not be super desirable. If they had just invested their down payment in the S&P it would be worth twice what the house is. But as it is, investors seem convinced real estate is a great investment because governments refuse to let people build so prices continue to skyrocket. In Japan the value of a building reaches $0 after 30 years because they rebuild everything. A building is an inherently depreciating asset, yet my tenement in Boston build in the 1880's continues to go up in value because they cant build shit.
- chung8123 3y ago
  There is only a finite amount of land. The land value will most likely rise with demand and inflation regardless of the building that is there. Owning a home is an investment because you need a place to live and in the location on where you want to establish yourself. A home going up in value only helps a person on the side and hurts them in the short term because of taxes. Also only accounting for the downpayment is an incomplete investment picture. Most real estate is bought on leverage which multiplies returns. You cannot force people to think that the value of a building is zero just because you want it to be. We have seen new homes further out command very high prices here in the US because of culture and there are a lot that desire the fit and finish of a new home but for the most part the old homes are still desirable and livable. Eventually old homes are rebuilt or remodeled and if they sell at the lowest point (like after a fire) will be sold for land value.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Last time I checked, the bay are was mostly single-storey homes. You could probably house 10 times as much people on the same land if you bought 6 storey apartment blocks. Land is finite, but upzoning it still reduces the cost of a square meter of floor space. I agree with you that the value of real estate is : building + land. While the building deprecates, the value of the land is going up. But this can at least be dampened by upzoning and by taxing land value.
  - anthonypasq 3y ago
    all im saying is that investment groups would not be investing in real estate over tech stocks if supply wasnt artificially constrained.
konschubert 3y ago
> In many areas there appear to be lots of empty living units Citation needed. (There is a problem with Prop 13 in California, where old people stay in houses that are way to big for them, removing supply from the marktet. But that's not the "empty apartments" you're referring to)
- sandworm101 3y ago
  It all depends on the definition of empty. I take a practical approach: if there isn't someone sleeping in that unit regularly, it is empty. If I walk my dog through a neighborhood and see countless dark/cold apartments, ones where nobody has seen a light turn on in years and the mail either piles up or has been stopped, those are empty. Others take different approaches. Some are of the view that a unit is not empty so long as it is listed as someone's "primary residence", irrespective of whether they actually sleep there.
adolph 3y ago
> Anyone owning an empty house or apartment should be taxed whatever amount it necessary to encourage them into at least renting that place out That approach will surely encourage the hoarders and wreckers to build more housing.
aaronsimpson 3y ago
This just isn't true, especially in areas where housing costs are the worst. I don't have a citation right now, but I'm pretty sure a city in Canada attempted this (Vancouver?) and the returns were paltry, because the underlying fact just wasn't true. There is no glut of empty apartments and condos in markets like California, New York, Washington, Florida, Washington D.C., etc. full stop.

returningfory2 3y ago

It doesn’t need to be either/or. We can simultaneously increase housing supply through new construction and disincentivize suboptimal uses of housing you describe.

anthonypasq 3y ago

why does everyone fail to understand that the reason real estate is an "investment" is because prices are skyrocketing because supply is artificially constrained. If we just built properly real estate wouldnt be such a great investment. My parents happened to buy their house in an area that wasnt super desirable and continued to not be super desirable. If they had just invested their down payment in the S&P it would be worth twice what the house is. But as it is, investors seem convinced real estate is a great investment because governments refuse to let people build so prices continue to skyrocket. In Japan the value of a building reaches $0 after 30 years because they rebuild everything. A building is an inherently depreciating asset, yet my tenement in Boston build in the 1880's continues to go up in value because they cant build shit.

chung8123 3y ago
There is only a finite amount of land. The land value will most likely rise with demand and inflation regardless of the building that is there. Owning a home is an investment because you need a place to live and in the location on where you want to establish yourself. A home going up in value only helps a person on the side and hurts them in the short term because of taxes. Also only accounting for the downpayment is an incomplete investment picture. Most real estate is bought on leverage which multiplies returns. You cannot force people to think that the value of a building is zero just because you want it to be. We have seen new homes further out command very high prices here in the US because of culture and there are a lot that desire the fit and finish of a new home but for the most part the old homes are still desirable and livable. Eventually old homes are rebuilt or remodeled and if they sell at the lowest point (like after a fire) will be sold for land value.
- konschubert 3y ago
  Last time I checked, the bay are was mostly single-storey homes. You could probably house 10 times as much people on the same land if you bought 6 storey apartment blocks. Land is finite, but upzoning it still reduces the cost of a square meter of floor space. I agree with you that the value of real estate is : building + land. While the building deprecates, the value of the land is going up. But this can at least be dampened by upzoning and by taxing land value.
- anthonypasq 3y ago
  all im saying is that investment groups would not be investing in real estate over tech stocks if supply wasnt artificially constrained.

konschubert 3y ago

> In many areas there appear to be lots of empty living units Citation needed. (There is a problem with Prop 13 in California, where old people stay in houses that are way to big for them, removing supply from the marktet. But that's not the "empty apartments" you're referring to)

sandworm101 3y ago
It all depends on the definition of empty. I take a practical approach: if there isn't someone sleeping in that unit regularly, it is empty. If I walk my dog through a neighborhood and see countless dark/cold apartments, ones where nobody has seen a light turn on in years and the mail either piles up or has been stopped, those are empty. Others take different approaches. Some are of the view that a unit is not empty so long as it is listed as someone's "primary residence", irrespective of whether they actually sleep there.

adolph 3y ago

> Anyone owning an empty house or apartment should be taxed whatever amount it necessary to encourage them into at least renting that place out That approach will surely encourage the hoarders and wreckers to build more housing.

aaronsimpson 3y ago

This just isn't true, especially in areas where housing costs are the worst. I don't have a citation right now, but I'm pretty sure a city in Canada attempted this (Vancouver?) and the returns were paltry, because the underlying fact just wasn't true. There is no glut of empty apartments and condos in markets like California, New York, Washington, Florida, Washington D.C., etc. full stop.