5 ms·

Step 1 is good in my opinion, though you might need some carveouts for corporations/trusts as there are sometimes good reasons for those; it should be a whiteli

Step 1 is good in my opinion, though you might need some carveouts for corporations/trusts as there are sometimes good reasons for those; it should be a whitelist though -- only some very specific circumstances are allowed, like say a property being held in a trust to be passed onto a descendant. For Step 2 though, what about instead of limiting how many houses you can own (as there will probably be significant legal challenges to that) what about progressively punitive property taxes on additional properties. Every house past the first pays 10% more annual property taxes than the previous one. By the time you're on your 10th house, you owe more than the value of that house every single year in property taxes. That gives those with really large amounts of fuck-you money the chance to still have those sorts of houses, but they operate at a pure loss, and we all get the benefit of that tax money.

grecy 3y ago
> Step 1 is good in my opinion, though you might need some carveouts... like say a property being held in a trust to be passed onto a descendant. What you're saying makes logical sense, though I think as soon as you make a carveout, it will get exploited. Many countries around the world have a housing crisis. There is no reason for a house to be held for some decendant to have it later. People need houses to live in NOW, not for them to be tied up waiting for some person to have it sometime in the future. It's ruthless, but I would just as soon force them to sell it so someone else can use it. Like drinking water or food, it is not reasonable to horde a limited resource which then means others miss out. > For Step 2, what about progressively punitive property taxes on additional properties. That gives those with really large amounts of fuck-you money the chance to still have those sorts of houses, but they operate at a pure loss, and we all get the benefit of that tax money. Still doesn't fix the problem. We don't want more tax money, we want houses for people to live in. A billionaire could still own 100 houses and just run them all at a loss and not care. That's 99 people that now don't have a home because one person is greedy. > as there will probably be significant legal challenges to that Well, yes. We're talking about changing the LAW to make this thing explicitly illegal. That means there will be people that won't like it, and interestingly enough it will only be the greedy people who are hording and stopping other people having houses that will be upset. That is what we want. If those people are not upset, we're not doing enough to stop them ruining society for everyone else.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > It's ruthless, but I would just as soon force them to sell it so someone else can use it. Like drinking water or food, it is not reasonable to horde a limited resource which then means others miss out. The ruthlessness is part of the problem. You need some escape hatches, or you strongly incentivize a lot of people to not go for this. You want to give those on the fence a reason to go to your side of it. > We don't want more tax money, we want houses for people to live in. A billionaire could still own 100 houses and just run them all at a loss and not care. That's 99 people that now don't have a home because one person is greedy. Well, I would argue that having to pay 1000% of the houses' value every single year will be beneficial to the rest of us. Yes, sure, it takes some houses off the market, but a $1m house would be generating $10m in tax revenue every single year for the locality. At that sort of return, let them have their 100 houses. We can use the money they pay to fund building more housing or maintaining infrastructure. I'm willing to let a few dozen billionaires have their vanity homes if it means we get to absolutely fleece them for the privilege.
  - grecy 3y ago
    > or you strongly incentivize a lot of people to not go for this. By very definition if we do literally anything that makes housing more affordable, we make it less of a good invetment, which means a lot of people will not go for it. We already covered that in my first comment. Old people that own houses want them to be a good invesment. Young people that do not own houses want them to be affordable. Pick one group to make happy. > We can use the money they pay to fund building more housing Now you're complicating the issue and getting away from the core issue/problem here. Yes, building more houses would be great, but that is NOT the fundamental problem here. The fundamental problem that has to be addressed first, is that housing can not simultaneously be a good investment AND be affordable. We MUST fix that first.
    - jjav 3y ago
      > Old people that own houses want them to be a good invesment. This sounds very simplistic. The majority of homeowners don't care. You talk a lot about investment but if you ask homeowners if their house is an investment or a home, the majority will say the latter. For homeowners who want to live in their home (as opposed to house flippers) the value of the house is not relevant. They live there, they plan to continue living there. Having the value go up is not good, it just means paying more taxes for the same home. It's better for the value to remain constant or even go down (same home, less taxes, yay!) > housing can not simultaneously be a good investment AND be affordable That's impossible from simple economics. As long as there is inflation (and there will always be inflation, it is a goal of the fed), a durable good cannot go down in price over the long haul (unless the whole city collapses like Detroit, but that's not good for anyone either). What you wish for is impossible.

grecy 3y ago

> Step 1 is good in my opinion, though you might need some carveouts... like say a property being held in a trust to be passed onto a descendant. What you're saying makes logical sense, though I think as soon as you make a carveout, it will get exploited. Many countries around the world have a housing crisis. There is no reason for a house to be held for some decendant to have it later. People need houses to live in NOW, not for them to be tied up waiting for some person to have it sometime in the future. It's ruthless, but I would just as soon force them to sell it so someone else can use it. Like drinking water or food, it is not reasonable to horde a limited resource which then means others miss out. > For Step 2, what about progressively punitive property taxes on additional properties. That gives those with really large amounts of fuck-you money the chance to still have those sorts of houses, but they operate at a pure loss, and we all get the benefit of that tax money. Still doesn't fix the problem. We don't want more tax money, we want houses for people to live in. A billionaire could still own 100 houses and just run them all at a loss and not care. That's 99 people that now don't have a home because one person is greedy. > as there will probably be significant legal challenges to that Well, yes. We're talking about changing the LAW to make this thing explicitly illegal. That means there will be people that won't like it, and interestingly enough it will only be the greedy people who are hording and stopping other people having houses that will be upset. That is what we want. If those people are not upset, we're not doing enough to stop them ruining society for everyone else.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
> It's ruthless, but I would just as soon force them to sell it so someone else can use it. Like drinking water or food, it is not reasonable to horde a limited resource which then means others miss out. The ruthlessness is part of the problem. You need some escape hatches, or you strongly incentivize a lot of people to not go for this. You want to give those on the fence a reason to go to your side of it. > We don't want more tax money, we want houses for people to live in. A billionaire could still own 100 houses and just run them all at a loss and not care. That's 99 people that now don't have a home because one person is greedy. Well, I would argue that having to pay 1000% of the houses' value every single year will be beneficial to the rest of us. Yes, sure, it takes some houses off the market, but a $1m house would be generating $10m in tax revenue every single year for the locality. At that sort of return, let them have their 100 houses. We can use the money they pay to fund building more housing or maintaining infrastructure. I'm willing to let a few dozen billionaires have their vanity homes if it means we get to absolutely fleece them for the privilege.
- grecy 3y ago
  > or you strongly incentivize a lot of people to not go for this. By very definition if we do literally anything that makes housing more affordable, we make it less of a good invetment, which means a lot of people will not go for it. We already covered that in my first comment. Old people that own houses want them to be a good invesment. Young people that do not own houses want them to be affordable. Pick one group to make happy. > We can use the money they pay to fund building more housing Now you're complicating the issue and getting away from the core issue/problem here. Yes, building more houses would be great, but that is NOT the fundamental problem here. The fundamental problem that has to be addressed first, is that housing can not simultaneously be a good investment AND be affordable. We MUST fix that first.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Old people that own houses want them to be a good invesment. This sounds very simplistic. The majority of homeowners don't care. You talk a lot about investment but if you ask homeowners if their house is an investment or a home, the majority will say the latter. For homeowners who want to live in their home (as opposed to house flippers) the value of the house is not relevant. They live there, they plan to continue living there. Having the value go up is not good, it just means paying more taxes for the same home. It's better for the value to remain constant or even go down (same home, less taxes, yay!) > housing can not simultaneously be a good investment AND be affordable That's impossible from simple economics. As long as there is inflation (and there will always be inflation, it is a goal of the fed), a durable good cannot go down in price over the long haul (unless the whole city collapses like Detroit, but that's not good for anyone either). What you wish for is impossible.