Fried_out_Kombi

[email protected]

Property taxes != Land value taxes

Further, it's not a tax on capital; it's a tax on land. It's very explicitly designed to target land, as land has distinct economic properties that make it a prime target for taxation.

And yes, it does target speculative investments like those of Blackrock:

It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.

https://osf.io/preprints/osf/54q68

They are taxed, but I think they could be taxed more and better. Specifically, we should implement a land value tax (LVT).

As for why LVT? In short, it's just a really good tax. Progressive, widely regarded by economists as "the perfect tax", incentivizes efficient use of land, discourages speculation and rent-seeking, economically efficient, and hard to evade. Plus, critically regarding landlords, land value taxes can't be passed on to tenants, both in economic theory and in observed practice.

As for the difference between LVT and property taxes? This video explains well how property taxes enable land speculation and disincentivize housing development, and how replacing them with land value taxes would alleviate these issues.

Further, even places (such as the Australian Capital Territory) that have implemented quite milquetoast LVTs have seen positive impacts on housing affordability:

It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.

NYC itself doesn't have much (although it still has some! see image below) low-density zoning, but their suburbs sure do. The city itself also has a lot of other bureaucratic barriers to development that result in it having abysmal housing construction rates.

As for vacancy, yes, the threat of not being able to sell is what stops builders from building too much. For example, it's the reason no one's even trying to build the Burj Khalifa in Bakersfield. But if you make it legal and reasonably easy to build, yes, people will build.

Perhaps Tokyo is the best example. Biggest city in the world, and yet it's actually relatively affordable, thanks largely to good land use policy:

In the past half century, by investing in transit and allowing development, the city has added more housing units than the total number of units in New York City. It has remained affordable by becoming the world’s largest city. It has become the world’s largest city by remaining affordable.

Two full-time workers earning Tokyo’s minimum wage can comfortably afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in six of the city’s 23 wards. By contrast, two people working minimum-wage jobs cannot afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in any of the 23 counties in the New York metropolitan area.

...

In Tokyo, by contrast, there is little public or subsidized housing. Instead, the government has focused on making it easy for developers to build. A national zoning law, for example, sharply limits the ability of local governments to impede development. Instead of allowing the people who live in a neighborhood to prevent others from living there, Japan has shifted decision-making to the representatives of the entire population, allowing a better balance between the interests of current residents and of everyone who might live in that place. Small apartment buildings can be built almost anywhere, and larger structures are allowed on a vast majority of urban land. Even in areas designated for offices, homes are permitted. After Tokyo’s office market crashed in the 1990s, developers started building apartments on land they had purchased for office buildings.

I think the key idea is to not have government bureaucrats or existing homeowners or landlords decide whether there's "enough" housing, but rather let builders determine if there's unmet demand. If there is unmet demand, they will build if you let them. If there truly is enough housing in a certain city, then you don't need to tell builders not to build -- they'll simply stop building if they sense there's not enough demand for it.

The "we have enough homes already" is a common (and unfortunately very harmful) myth.

A couple good in-depth videos on the topic:

• https://youtu.be/evYOhpjMql0?si=IRUAo9RxDjZVenpI
• https://youtu.be/3xZXdXxYBGU?si=DF-MesH6FIetbur-

The gist of it is that statistics on how many vacant homes exist are highly misleading, for two main reasons:

1. Many of the homes are not where the demand is. A vacant home in St Louis does nothing to help with a housing shortage in NYC. People want to live in NYC because that's where the jobs are. A house in St Louis isn't worth much if you can't find work there. And statistics consistently show that the most expensive cities have the lowest vacancy rates.
2. A lot of the homes that are counted as "vacant" aren't actually just free for the taking like "vacant" would have you believe. In these statistics, "vacant" can mean: 1) a unit that is between tenants, 2) a unit that just finished being built and is awaiting its tenant's move-in, 3) a unit occupied by someone who doesn't legally state it as their primary residence (e.g., student housing where the student still lists their parents' home as their primary address), 4) a unit in horrible disrepair that is unfit for occupation, etc.

Add to this the fact that high vacancy rates are GOOD for you, as it means landlords and sellers have a credible threat of vacancy, meaning they can't demand ludicrous prices. Reducing vacancy rates is an incredibly anti-consumer, pro-landlord move.

Yeah, political opinions based on "regulations always good" or "regulations always bad" are lazy and unhelpful. For one, it ignores that many regulations are written for the express purpose of manufacturing or solidifying a monopoly.

Regulatory capture

And NIMBY land use policies really are just a textbook example of regulatory capture. Homeowners, who expect their homes to perpetually increase in value, lobby their local governments to manufacture an artificial scarcity of housing so as to drive their property values to the moon. All of this at the expense of renters and new home buyers.

Imo, we should all be trying to form nuanced political opinions where we judge policy on whether it's good policy or not.

Honestly, I care far more about untangling our rat's nest of NIMBY land use laws. As it stands, it's literally illegal to build anything denser than sprawling, low-density suburbs on the majority of urban land thanks to NIMBY policies such as restrictive zoning and arbitrary mandatory parking minimums.

Tbh, the whole "corporate ownership of homes" is a red herring. Shuffling around ownership does nothing if you're not massively expanding supply. And what we need most right now is massively expanded supply.

Better than a wealth tax is a land value tax. Key properties are that it doesn't cause capital flight (you can't move land), it's almost impossible to evade (you can't hide land), it's economically efficient (it literally doesn't even harm the economy in the slightest to implement it), it can't be passed on to tenants (both in economic theory and in observed practice), and it's progressive.

Plus, it incentives denser, transit-oriented city development and disincentivizes wastage of prime real estate (which contributes to the housing crisis). All in all, a terrific policy that people aren't talking nearly enough about imo.

Exactly. When the accused has paid off half the jury, you shouldn't put much stock in the verdict.

The only thing I care about when determining whether something is a genocide is the facts of the case (which are overwhelmingly in favor of describing the Uyghur genocide as a genocide), not the outcome of a highly political vote by countries all with their own motives and interests.

Imagine if someone defended nazis with "they were calmly denying the Holocaust". I've seen far too many tankies denying the Uyghur genocide every chance they get. Like you say, it doesn't matter the tone; genocide denial is itself a line you don't cross.

They'll ban you for acknowledging the existence of the Uyghur genocide, for one

Edit: wording