5 ms·

> by taxing / fining people for having a second home. I don't see the issue with this? The profits in Canadian real estate are not on the back of some new foun

> by taxing / fining people for having a second home. I don't see the issue with this? The profits in Canadian real estate are not on the back of some new found resource. It's entirely an effective wealth redistribution from have-nots to haves. If you have property, the vast amount of value in it is strictly from the fact that it is artificially scarce. To get into the "haves" you have to pay an artificial tax in the form of a grossly inflated price.

all2 2y ago
The grossly inflated price comes from where though? I'd put it to you that a ban on usury where real estate was concerned would crush land values over night. Easy money (cheap loans) allow speculation, and speculation is one of the primary drivers of land value.
- epistasis 2y ago
  A far bigger driver of speculation is scarcity. Without that scarcity, loans would do nothing to drive land value. Tight zoning is the primary driver of real estate value, because it further increases the scarcity of land. It makes small homes worth absolutely insane values. Further, though eliminating cheap loans will limit the amount that people can pay for the real estate, it also reduces the ability of people to pay, so every person is back to the same place with scarcity. So though eliminating loans may change the face value of the cost of housing, in real terms, eliminating loans does nothing for ordinary's people ability to obtain housing where they want it. Only increasing supply by removing overly restrictive zoning will actually improve the material conditions for people. All that said, we should definitely eliminate financial products in the US like the 30 year fixed rate mortgage, a government creation that does inflate prices, while reducing the ability of people to move. But we should get rid of it primarily because it reduces the ability of people to move by trapping them into the home they were in when mortgage rates were low.
- voisin 2y ago
  What you call usury is also a government caused problem. It’s almost like 30+ year amortizations and ultra low interest rates… weren’t good for affordability. But now everyone but the government itself is the cause of this issue (in the government’s humble opinion). Blame immigrants, developers, AirBNB, investors… anyone but government! And if you must blame government, blame some other level of government!
  - all2 2y ago
    Tbh, I think you nailed it. Policy largely drives the system in a law avoiding society.
jahewson 2y ago
No, no, the government interjecting themselves into housing and creating an artificial scarcity, to aid their favoured voters at the time, is the problem. The idea that the solution to this is not to have the government step back but to have them become even more involved by redistributing this wealth distortion to their new favoured voters is a further level of madness.
- voisin 2y ago
  This is my point above 100%. The government has been the sole source of these problems and now is desperate to solve them, steamrolling people without compensation. The same, in my opinion, with inflation. Inflation has been caused by government monetary policy being too loose for three decades and effectively neutering its anti-competition authorities, but now they are getting tough on grocers as if the grocers are both the sole cause of the problem (false!) and that they made the problem in a vacuum (false!). I have historically been extremely liberal, voting Liberal or NDP (even more liberal than the Liberals for those outside Canada) my whole life. The last few years of seeing our Liberal government fumble the ball so badly and point at everyone but the government itself (left and right governments of the current and past!) has made me realize the truth of the Reagan quote “government isn’t the solution to your problems, it is the source of your problems”. Hayek’s Nobel speech on the pretence of knowledge is as accurate as ever.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> I don't see the issue with this? Consider the incentives the government has created here. You can't build new housing, or it's extremely expensive because it's limited to specific lots and then you have to buy out whatever happens to be there even if they don't want to sell, and destroy a 5 story building in order to build a 10 story building, doubling costs while halving the increase in housing. Housing is thereby expensive. So you tax people who own housing. Well, that doesn't lower rents, because there are still the same number of people who need somewhere to live but now fewer people to invest in new construction because it's less profitable with more of the money going to taxes, so that lowers supply even more and rents increase to cover the new taxes. This an undersupply problem. You don't fix it by taxing suppliers.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Taxing people who own multiple homes and taxing people who own apartment complexes are two completely different things and shouldn't be conflated.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    You do realize that if someone can avoid the tax by renting it out then they'll just rent it out to a friend for a nominal amount to avoid the tax?
    - triceratops 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure you lose a lot of tax advantages on rental properties (mortgage interest deduction, depreciation etc.) if you don't rent them at market rate. If they rent it for a nominal amount, they're effectively losing money on the property and gambling on appreciation. If someone wants to do that, good luck to them.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        You can't deduct depreciation on an owner-occupied house to begin with. The premise is that you're trying to distinguish between landlords and people who have a second home for themselves. But they can just rent it to a friend who in turn lets them use it. If they're buying multiple homes to rent out at market rates to the general public then they're just an ordinary landlord -- the thing that wouldn't be paying a tax on "second homes" by design.

all2 2y ago

The grossly inflated price comes from where though? I'd put it to you that a ban on usury where real estate was concerned would crush land values over night. Easy money (cheap loans) allow speculation, and speculation is one of the primary drivers of land value.

epistasis 2y ago
A far bigger driver of speculation is scarcity. Without that scarcity, loans would do nothing to drive land value. Tight zoning is the primary driver of real estate value, because it further increases the scarcity of land. It makes small homes worth absolutely insane values. Further, though eliminating cheap loans will limit the amount that people can pay for the real estate, it also reduces the ability of people to pay, so every person is back to the same place with scarcity. So though eliminating loans may change the face value of the cost of housing, in real terms, eliminating loans does nothing for ordinary's people ability to obtain housing where they want it. Only increasing supply by removing overly restrictive zoning will actually improve the material conditions for people. All that said, we should definitely eliminate financial products in the US like the 30 year fixed rate mortgage, a government creation that does inflate prices, while reducing the ability of people to move. But we should get rid of it primarily because it reduces the ability of people to move by trapping them into the home they were in when mortgage rates were low.
voisin 2y ago
What you call usury is also a government caused problem. It’s almost like 30+ year amortizations and ultra low interest rates… weren’t good for affordability. But now everyone but the government itself is the cause of this issue (in the government’s humble opinion). Blame immigrants, developers, AirBNB, investors… anyone but government! And if you must blame government, blame some other level of government!
- all2 2y ago
  Tbh, I think you nailed it. Policy largely drives the system in a law avoiding society.

jahewson 2y ago

No, no, the government interjecting themselves into housing and creating an artificial scarcity, to aid their favoured voters at the time, is the problem. The idea that the solution to this is not to have the government step back but to have them become even more involved by redistributing this wealth distortion to their new favoured voters is a further level of madness.

voisin 2y ago
This is my point above 100%. The government has been the sole source of these problems and now is desperate to solve them, steamrolling people without compensation. The same, in my opinion, with inflation. Inflation has been caused by government monetary policy being too loose for three decades and effectively neutering its anti-competition authorities, but now they are getting tough on grocers as if the grocers are both the sole cause of the problem (false!) and that they made the problem in a vacuum (false!). I have historically been extremely liberal, voting Liberal or NDP (even more liberal than the Liberals for those outside Canada) my whole life. The last few years of seeing our Liberal government fumble the ball so badly and point at everyone but the government itself (left and right governments of the current and past!) has made me realize the truth of the Reagan quote “government isn’t the solution to your problems, it is the source of your problems”. Hayek’s Nobel speech on the pretence of knowledge is as accurate as ever.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> I don't see the issue with this? Consider the incentives the government has created here. You can't build new housing, or it's extremely expensive because it's limited to specific lots and then you have to buy out whatever happens to be there even if they don't want to sell, and destroy a 5 story building in order to build a 10 story building, doubling costs while halving the increase in housing. Housing is thereby expensive. So you tax people who own housing. Well, that doesn't lower rents, because there are still the same number of people who need somewhere to live but now fewer people to invest in new construction because it's less profitable with more of the money going to taxes, so that lowers supply even more and rents increase to cover the new taxes. This an undersupply problem. You don't fix it by taxing suppliers.

bongodongobob 2y ago
Taxing people who own multiple homes and taxing people who own apartment complexes are two completely different things and shouldn't be conflated.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You do realize that if someone can avoid the tax by renting it out then they'll just rent it out to a friend for a nominal amount to avoid the tax?
  - triceratops 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure you lose a lot of tax advantages on rental properties (mortgage interest deduction, depreciation etc.) if you don't rent them at market rate. If they rent it for a nominal amount, they're effectively losing money on the property and gambling on appreciation. If someone wants to do that, good luck to them.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      You can't deduct depreciation on an owner-occupied house to begin with. The premise is that you're trying to distinguish between landlords and people who have a second home for themselves. But they can just rent it to a friend who in turn lets them use it. If they're buying multiple homes to rent out at market rates to the general public then they're just an ordinary landlord -- the thing that wouldn't be paying a tax on "second homes" by design.