3 ms·

> Those price-fungible goods and services you name capture surplus value to the seller. A Georgian tax on such goods captures that surplus value, limits price g

by mgh95 2y ago

> Those price-fungible goods and services you name capture surplus value to the seller. A Georgian tax on such goods captures that surplus value, limits price growth, and could further finance UBI/GBI and other public welfare projects. Big oof. This rapidly turns into market participants leaving the market because the returns associated with the "price-fungible goods and services" (whatever precisely those are) are poorer than those not denominated in the currency. Mass distribution of currency only leads to devaluation of currency. The entire premise of Georgism isn't about fixing wealth inequality: it's about forcing resources that are physically finite with no replacement (namely land) into productive use.

scotty79 2y ago
There's zero downsides from large scale capital leaving housing real estate rental market. That's exactly what is needed for housing to return to acting like housing.
- mgh95 2y ago
  The downside is that you cannot build units (especially apartments) without large scale capital. To effectively build, you need people (developers) to finance the construction of many units, especially multifamily whether townhomes, apartments, or condos. The issue is heavily constrained supply. Even if it is profitable to build a smaller, lower-cost unit land use restrictions effectively limit the production of housing units from land.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Capital flooding into the residential real estate market hasn't exactly 'sploded the quantity of available housing. There are other mechanisms of financing housing than equity capital. (Loans, grants, tax deductions to mortgage holders, direct land grants as was the case with the Homestead Act, direct government construction (local, regional, state, federal), etc.)
    - mgh95 2y ago
      > Capital flooding into the residential real estate market hasn't exactly 'sploded the quantity of available housing. No, because zoning (both in terms of timeline and build restrictions) is leading to artificial restriction of housing units. This, coupled with requirements for subpar financial returns due to large amounts of affordable housing requirements (again, due to lack of capacity) leads to increased housing costs. > There are other mechanisms of financing housing than equity capital. (Loans, grants, tax deductions to mortgage holders, direct land grants as was the case with the Homestead Act, direct government construction (local, regional, state, federal), etc.) And how, exactly are those paid for? By taxes. And this runs into the same issues as any public project in addition to the standard construction issues. This is why it took SF 1.2MM on average to build affordable housing (see: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-tha...). Direct government construction is, in practice, unsuccessful.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        The largest factor in new housing construction is land cost, and withholding land from new construction largely as a financial asset. Land-value taxation directly addresses both factors. Note that this is a tax on the land, not (as most property taxes are) on improvements. This increases the costs of holding unimproved land, and directly incentivises the improvements of land. As with numerous other types of widespread phenomena, localised zoning restrictions do little to explain why new housing is so unavailable on a global basis, both across the US in hugely disparate cities, counties, and states, as well as in many places worldwide. The places which seem to have the most affordable housing are those in which capital is least incentivised to buy and hold it. Notably Vienna, Austria, and of all places, Tokyo, Japan. There are any number of other factors which also play roles, but those tend to vary strongly amongst regions. Zoning is a problem but not the problem, as are certain building codes and other restrictions. I'd include those in elements to be addressed, but focus on the main problem.
        mgh95 2y ago

by mgh95 2y ago

scotty79 2y ago

There's zero downsides from large scale capital leaving housing real estate rental market. That's exactly what is needed for housing to return to acting like housing.

mgh95 2y ago
The downside is that you cannot build units (especially apartments) without large scale capital. To effectively build, you need people (developers) to finance the construction of many units, especially multifamily whether townhomes, apartments, or condos. The issue is heavily constrained supply. Even if it is profitable to build a smaller, lower-cost unit land use restrictions effectively limit the production of housing units from land.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Capital flooding into the residential real estate market hasn't exactly 'sploded the quantity of available housing. There are other mechanisms of financing housing than equity capital. (Loans, grants, tax deductions to mortgage holders, direct land grants as was the case with the Homestead Act, direct government construction (local, regional, state, federal), etc.)
  - mgh95 2y ago
    > Capital flooding into the residential real estate market hasn't exactly 'sploded the quantity of available housing. No, because zoning (both in terms of timeline and build restrictions) is leading to artificial restriction of housing units. This, coupled with requirements for subpar financial returns due to large amounts of affordable housing requirements (again, due to lack of capacity) leads to increased housing costs. > There are other mechanisms of financing housing than equity capital. (Loans, grants, tax deductions to mortgage holders, direct land grants as was the case with the Homestead Act, direct government construction (local, regional, state, federal), etc.) And how, exactly are those paid for? By taxes. And this runs into the same issues as any public project in addition to the standard construction issues. This is why it took SF 1.2MM on average to build affordable housing (see: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-tha...). Direct government construction is, in practice, unsuccessful.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      The largest factor in new housing construction is land cost, and withholding land from new construction largely as a financial asset. Land-value taxation directly addresses both factors. Note that this is a tax on the land, not (as most property taxes are) on improvements. This increases the costs of holding unimproved land, and directly incentivises the improvements of land. As with numerous other types of widespread phenomena, localised zoning restrictions do little to explain why new housing is so unavailable on a global basis, both across the US in hugely disparate cities, counties, and states, as well as in many places worldwide. The places which seem to have the most affordable housing are those in which capital is least incentivised to buy and hold it. Notably Vienna, Austria, and of all places, Tokyo, Japan. There are any number of other factors which also play roles, but those tend to vary strongly amongst regions. Zoning is a problem but not the problem, as are certain building codes and other restrictions. I'd include those in elements to be addressed, but focus on the main problem.
      - mgh95 2y ago