3 ms·

For renovation, it's not just stainless steel appliances, it's little things over time. In 1 or 2 years it's not really noticeable but over 5-10 years it start

by mmmurf 18y ago

For renovation, it's not just stainless steel appliances, it's little things over time. In 1 or 2 years it's not really noticeable but over 5-10 years it starts to take a toll. Even the building I used to live in used a large tarp on the roof rather than fixing some leaks that would drip through the ceiling of my apartment and cause bubbles in the drywall when we had heavy rain. In the mission, I would prefer if a subsidy was just given to the poor via tax dollars. Say it's a $200 per household subsidy. Maybe it makes sense for that family to pay it to the landlord, but maybe it makes sense to find a cheaper apartment and spend it on a TV. If it turns out that the TV was the chosen decision, that helps drive down the price of rent b/c maybe the landlord will have a slightly harder time raising rent prices. If, on the other hand, the tenant chooses to allocate the money to housing, it will help drive up housing prices. The upside of driving up housing prices is that it now becomes more worthwhile for someone to convert their house into apartments, which in turn increases supply and would tend to help keep prices affordable.

calambrac 18y ago
Of course it's not just stainless steel appliances - the thrust of the argument is that it's silly to think of buildings as more important than the people inside them. Direct payment like you're advocating is a political non-starter. As paternalistic as it is, taxpayers don't like the idea that their money could be spent on anything, they want it to go only to the things they approve of.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Direct payment like you're advocating is a political non-starter. It is the only non-distorting form of wefare possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income . taxpayers don't like the idea that their money could be spent on [just] anything What if no one paid or owed discrete taxes? In other words, what if there were no taxes on income or consumption? . http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html The political wrangling obscured the real issues underlying a question that has occupied economists and tax experts for many years—whether individuals should pay any taxes at all on capital income. Strange as it may sound, most economists would agree that having zero taxes on capital income is theoretically the best thing to do. . http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf Several studies even demonstrate that, from the point of view of maximizing economic growth, the long-run optimal taxation is zero. Milesi-Ferretti and Roubini (1994), for instance, show that under very general assumptions the optimal tax burden on labour and capital income is zero. Jones, Manuelli and Rossi (1993b) and Bull (1993) add that even consumption taxes ought to be equal to zero ... no such thing as a progressive tax system should be allowed to exist. More precisely, as Sir Mirrlees (1971) showed, the marginal tax rate at the highest level of income should be zero. And finally, in our eyes, there should be no capital income tax.
- mmmurf 18y ago
  Well, the extreme case of non-upkeep is the vacant buildings in NYC, etc. When nobody can make a profit from a building, it gets abandoned. This isn't an overnight process. It starts by using a tarp on the roof instead of fixing the roof, and it ends when the building is abandoned and nobody has to pay any rent or fix any broken pipes, etc. I agree that the public would rather "force evil landlords to do x" than achieve the social goal in a minimally economically distortionary way. It similar to how politicians give handouts to people who drive hybrid cars while at the same time fighting a hugely expensive war to prevent oil prices from increasing to the point where people would just buy electric cars because they were cheaper!

by mmmurf 18y ago

calambrac 18y ago

Of course it's not just stainless steel appliances - the thrust of the argument is that it's silly to think of buildings as more important than the people inside them. Direct payment like you're advocating is a political non-starter. As paternalistic as it is, taxpayers don't like the idea that their money could be spent on anything, they want it to go only to the things they approve of.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
Direct payment like you're advocating is a political non-starter. It is the only non-distorting form of wefare possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income . taxpayers don't like the idea that their money could be spent on [just] anything What if no one paid or owed discrete taxes? In other words, what if there were no taxes on income or consumption? . http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html The political wrangling obscured the real issues underlying a question that has occupied economists and tax experts for many years—whether individuals should pay any taxes at all on capital income. Strange as it may sound, most economists would agree that having zero taxes on capital income is theoretically the best thing to do. . http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf Several studies even demonstrate that, from the point of view of maximizing economic growth, the long-run optimal taxation is zero. Milesi-Ferretti and Roubini (1994), for instance, show that under very general assumptions the optimal tax burden on labour and capital income is zero. Jones, Manuelli and Rossi (1993b) and Bull (1993) add that even consumption taxes ought to be equal to zero ... no such thing as a progressive tax system should be allowed to exist. More precisely, as Sir Mirrlees (1971) showed, the marginal tax rate at the highest level of income should be zero. And finally, in our eyes, there should be no capital income tax.
mmmurf 18y ago
Well, the extreme case of non-upkeep is the vacant buildings in NYC, etc. When nobody can make a profit from a building, it gets abandoned. This isn't an overnight process. It starts by using a tarp on the roof instead of fixing the roof, and it ends when the building is abandoned and nobody has to pay any rent or fix any broken pipes, etc. I agree that the public would rather "force evil landlords to do x" than achieve the social goal in a minimally economically distortionary way. It similar to how politicians give handouts to people who drive hybrid cars while at the same time fighting a hugely expensive war to prevent oil prices from increasing to the point where people would just buy electric cars because they were cheaper!