3 ms·

>And yet, criticisms aside, I don't know if any municipality in the country has figured out a good solution from the regulation side of things. In fact, I'm ske

>And yet, criticisms aside, I don't know if any municipality in the country has figured out a good solution from the regulation side of things. In fact, I'm skeptical if regulation can solve this problem. It feels like greedy slumlords are just going to be greedy slumlords no matter what rules we put into place A land value tax would eliminate this. It would simply divert the rental streams from the wealthy to the government (who can then reinvest it back into the community instead, unlike the wealthy who will just siphon it off). Raising property taxes would help, too, which every municipality can do.

greedo 11y ago
You seriously think the US (or local) govt has a good track record with reinvesting tax revenues into low income communities? And be careful with advocating property tax hikes; property taxes can be very regressive for low income home owners.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  And for renters as well. Don't presume that you can tax rental property without that tax showing up in the rent...
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >You seriously think the US (or local) govt has a good track record with reinvesting tax revenues into low income communities? Compared to the 1%? Fuck yes. Does the 1% dole out social security? Build schools? Roads? I don't think so. >property taxes can be very regressive for low income home owners. Not unless it's designed to be regressive (e.g. a poll tax instead of based upon the value of the property). Property taxes are naturally progressive - the more your property is worth, the more you pay in tax.
  - greedo 11y ago
    Are you familiar with the impetus behind Prop 13? (Not the side effects, but the motives.) A lot of homeowners were priced out of their homes because they couldn't afford the property tax rates. Sure they can sell, but then they're stuck as renters.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      Sure. That was the sales pitch. It was spearheaded by a guy who owned and rented out apartments. He also promised that rents would go down (which, of course, they didn't). A lot of California home owners are now sitting on gold mines thanks to this proposition.
      - greedo 11y ago
        Prop 13 kicked in in 1978, so 37 years ago. I wonder if there's any way to find out the percentage of homes purchased after 1978. My intuition tells me that most home would have churned by now, since most people who owned prior to 1978 would be in retirement or close to it. Also, Prop 13 still allows for increased assessments; they're just capped at 2% annually unless the property is sold. Considering the housing boom/bust cycle in CA has been pretty bad, 2% seems equitable.
        crdoconnor 11y ago
        >Also, Prop 13 still allows for increased assessments; they're just capped at 2% annually unless the property is sold. Considering the housing boom/bust cycle in CA has been pretty bad, 2% seems equitable. The boom/bust cycle was exacerbated by capping it at 2%. Property taxes are not raised or lowered, incidentally. They're a flow of income that is redirected from homeowners to the state or back again. Of course, home values increase substantially if homeowners can capture that stream of income derived from the value of the land. Hence the crazzzzzy house prices in California.

greedo 11y ago

You seriously think the US (or local) govt has a good track record with reinvesting tax revenues into low income communities? And be careful with advocating property tax hikes; property taxes can be very regressive for low income home owners.

sokoloff 11y ago
And for renters as well. Don't presume that you can tax rental property without that tax showing up in the rent...
crdoconnor 11y ago
>You seriously think the US (or local) govt has a good track record with reinvesting tax revenues into low income communities? Compared to the 1%? Fuck yes. Does the 1% dole out social security? Build schools? Roads? I don't think so. >property taxes can be very regressive for low income home owners. Not unless it's designed to be regressive (e.g. a poll tax instead of based upon the value of the property). Property taxes are naturally progressive - the more your property is worth, the more you pay in tax.
- greedo 11y ago
  Are you familiar with the impetus behind Prop 13? (Not the side effects, but the motives.) A lot of homeowners were priced out of their homes because they couldn't afford the property tax rates. Sure they can sell, but then they're stuck as renters.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    Sure. That was the sales pitch. It was spearheaded by a guy who owned and rented out apartments. He also promised that rents would go down (which, of course, they didn't). A lot of California home owners are now sitting on gold mines thanks to this proposition.
    - greedo 11y ago
      Prop 13 kicked in in 1978, so 37 years ago. I wonder if there's any way to find out the percentage of homes purchased after 1978. My intuition tells me that most home would have churned by now, since most people who owned prior to 1978 would be in retirement or close to it. Also, Prop 13 still allows for increased assessments; they're just capped at 2% annually unless the property is sold. Considering the housing boom/bust cycle in CA has been pretty bad, 2% seems equitable.
      - crdoconnor 11y ago
        >Also, Prop 13 still allows for increased assessments; they're just capped at 2% annually unless the property is sold. Considering the housing boom/bust cycle in CA has been pretty bad, 2% seems equitable. The boom/bust cycle was exacerbated by capping it at 2%. Property taxes are not raised or lowered, incidentally. They're a flow of income that is redirected from homeowners to the state or back again. Of course, home values increase substantially if homeowners can capture that stream of income derived from the value of the land. Hence the crazzzzzy house prices in California.