4 ms·

Kind of by definition you can't pay more in taxes than you contribute to the economy, therefore unoccupied housing is a drain on the local economy.

• alchemist1e9 3y ago
  Your assertion flips economic principles on their head. Vacant homes paying taxes without drawing on local services represent a net gain, not a drain. Taxes paid on these properties directly fund public services, enhancing the community’s infrastructure without additional burden. Furthermore, the investment in property contributes to the economy through construction, maintenance, and property management industries. To claim that unoccupied housing harms the local economy is not logical. Austrian economics teaches us that restricting foreign investment misinterprets how markets work. Vacant homes signal opportunities for builders, not losses for workers. Investment flows where it’s valued, stimulating demand and construction, not stifling growth. Misallocating housing due to artificial constraints only distorts the market, harming those you aim to help. Let’s not forget, economic growth comes from creating value, not redistributing scarcity.
  • FireBeyond 3y ago
    > To claim that unoccupied housing harms the local economy is not logical. Sure, property taxes are paid on the house. But unoccupied homes don't buy groceries and clothes, don't go to restaurants in the local economy. So they do harm the economy, in the sense that they don't contribute as much to the economy as an occupied home.
    • causi 3y ago
      Exactly. The amount of money I spend that goes to recipients in a ten mile radius utterly dwarfs what I pay in property taxes.
      • alchemist1e9 3y ago
        The critical factor in evaluating economic impact is per capita prosperity, not the geographic density of spending. Vacant properties, while not directly contributing to local consumer spending, represent significant capital inflows, enhancing the economic well-being on a per capita basis. Misunderstanding this dynamic overlooks the broader benefits of such investments, including bolstered public budgets and improved resource allocation. Government intervention to forcibly lower property values or curb vacant properties is misguided and would likely diminish overall prosperity. Instead, efforts should concentrate on dismantling barriers like excessive zoning restrictions and streamlining building permits to encourage development and increase housing supply. Viewing luxury or seaside properties remaining vacant as a problem ignores the unseen advantages these transactions provide. Sellers receive capital, presumably to be allocated more efficiently, while buyers secure a safe investment, indirectly contributing to the economy’s health. High housing prices signal a need for market adjustments, not for envy-driven policies that would only stifle growth and innovation. The sentiment of envy, while potentially motivating in small-scale societies, can lead to destructive policies in complex modern economies, detracting from the foundational principles that drive progress and prosperity.
        • FireBeyond 3y ago
          This is veering into a realm of hypotheticals and academia that ignore real world reality and humanity. You: "row upon row of vacant luxury properties represent significant capital inflow!" Real world: vacant luxury houses can cause blight and other problems just as much as low-income housing. Also, the value of the vacant property does not decrease because it is occupied. Unless your claim is that the local burden of people existing in a community is larger than the combination of their property and other contributions. So an occupied property represents significant capital inflows AND enhances economic well-being on a per capita basis, AND does so moreso than the vacant, because there's the capital inflow AND the local spending. Otherwise you end up with the absurdist trope of talking about public budgets as "homes and communities are worth more if no-one lives in them". "Assume a spherical cow..." "Assume a row of oceanfront villas that have roads and sewage and utilities that require less maintenance because they're all vacant." Phrasing it, as you repeatedly do, as "envy-driven" and "anti-free market" and libertarian ideology is sophistry. "You just don't get economics" - no, people understand that housing isn't a purely economic construct.
    • alchemist1e9 3y ago
      See my other reply. Your response is the perfect tell me you don’t understand economics without saying it response. Per capita!