Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

ocw.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 137 posts

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#41

Post by kredd »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #29
kredd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how it's down there, but my understanding is even if we have housing crisis, legislations that would actually bring down the housing prices is also bad for us. RE market is about 10%+ of the entire GDP, so we want individuals to park their money and use it as an investment vehicle as a part of the consumption cycle. Combine it with "i'll just buy it for my child/spouse/mom/dad" and so on, it's not really tha…

> RE market is about 10%+ of the entire GDP Source? Construction, commissions, renovations and lending maybe. But all that keeps happening in a constant real-price model.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=361004...

“Real estate and rental and leasing” for my province. Construction is separate. It is at 18%+ here, so I just rolled it down to 10 for the country-wide average. Probably much higher than that. This is Canadian numbers though, as I mentioned, I’m not sure how it is down there.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#42

Post by downrightmike »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

> why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property Trivially worked around. Use an LLC. Have it bought in a relative’s name. Have it bought in a rando’s name with a bulletproof lease with a $1 rent-to-own option at its termination. Essentially, the property registry system becomes a farce. (You see this, for example, in India.) Simpler: a straight wealth ta…

And the MLS system is entirely voluntary and seemingly not updated timely, but it also doesn't include the secondary market, you know those pale skinny guys in the TV ads with dead eyes saying they'll buy any house no matter the condition. And there is a lot of secondary going on, probably more than the normal RE market.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#43

Post by cbanek »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #32
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property Trivially worked around. Use an LLC. Have it bought in a relative’s name. Have it bought in a rando’s name with a bulletproof lease with a $1 rent-to-own option at its termination. Essentially, the property registry system becomes a farce. (You see this, for example, in India.) Simpler: a straight wealth ta…

I don’t see how those are trivially worked around in a country with a half decent government. People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property. LLC’s can be required to name the beneficial owner. The rent-to-own lease farce can also be trivially uncovered by requiring rents to be public, like real estate sales are in most jurisdictions.

> LLC’s can be required to name the beneficial owner.

Actually, they all are now required to register who the beneficial owners are for every LLC - https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2015

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#44

Post by downrightmike »

kredd wrote: post #9
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

Not sure how it's down there, but my understanding is even if we have housing crisis, legislations that would actually bring down the housing prices is also bad for us. RE market is about 10%+ of the entire GDP, so we want individuals to park their money and use it as an investment vehicle as a part of the consumption cycle. Combine it with "i'll just buy it for my child/spouse/mom/dad" and so on, it's not really tha…

If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be. This is all a farce and it needs to implode.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#45

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #40
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's trivially easy to monitor or seize real property Anyone who owns property should be horrified at the notion of making it “trivially easy” to seize real property. That turns this into electoral toast. Its only utility is in distracting from zoning reform. Also, the homeownership rate is 65% [1]. Second homeowners aren’t the problem. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

> (Also, homeownership is 65% [1]. Second homeowners aren’t the problem.) Is there a breakdown on what portion of this 65% own multiple homes? Personally, I’m not a fan of anyone who has more than 2 homes. One primary and one vacation or rental. Why does anyone need more than that?

> I’m not a fan of anyone who has more than 2 homes. One primary and one vacation or rental. Why does anyone need more than that?

Idk, why does anyone need anything beyond sustenance? Outside resort towns, I’m sceptical this is anything but a bogeyman.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#46

Post by JumpCrisscross »

downrightmike wrote: post #42
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property Trivially worked around. Use an LLC. Have it bought in a relative’s name. Have it bought in a rando’s name with a bulletproof lease with a $1 rent-to-own option at its termination. Essentially, the property registry system becomes a farce. (You see this, for example, in India.) Simpler: a straight wealth ta…

And the MLS system is entirely voluntary and seemingly not updated timely, but it also doesn't include the secondary market, you know those pale skinny guys in the TV ads with dead eyes saying they'll buy any house no matter the condition. And there is a lot of secondary going on, probably more than the normal RE market.

> there is a lot of secondary going on, probably more than the normal RE market

The primary real estate market is new builds. Everything else is secondary.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#47

Post by pixelatedindex »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
lotsofpulp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how those are trivially worked around in a country with a half decent government. People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property. LLC’s can be required to name the beneficial owner. The rent-to-own lease farce can also be trivially uncovered by requiring rents to be public, like real estate sales are in most jurisdictions.

> don’t see how those are trivially worked around in a country with a half decent government Look at how people abuse rent controlled apartments. (All the way up to the current mayor.) > People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property This is literally what happens in places with such taxes. I wouldn’t bat an eye buying a house in my partner or a parent’s name if it saved 3x property taxes.

I’m sick of rent control being vilified. If you’re not going to build more then you definitely need it. I’ve had my rent go up as much as 20%, forcing me to move on more than one occasion. If Prop 13 keeps the grandma in their home, then why can’t I have rent control that lets me stay put and provide stability?

Landlords will do the absolute minimum for repairs anyway, rent control or not.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#48

Post by downrightmike »

cpursley wrote: post #20

This is one of the issues behind the North American housing crisis (there’s no “middle” housing): https://missingmiddlehousing.com

Yes and there are no third places where people can hangout locally. Out of all we know about humans up to 1950 is that we don't live full lives out in the burbs.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#49

Post by majormajor »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38
majormajor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e. "we don't want to." We could require more disclosures and auditing and regulations of those workarounds. It's not some digital thing that could be hidden anywhere, it's trivially easy to monitor or seize real property.

> it's trivially easy to monitor or seize real property Anyone who owns property should be horrified at the notion of making it “trivially easy” to seize real property. That turns this into electoral toast. Its only utility is in distracting from zoning reform. Also, the homeownership rate is 65% [1]. Second homeowners aren’t the problem. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

Trivially easy refers to the physical act: show up with force. Not that it should be any more "trivially easy" to crack down on than, say, tax evasion - that is, you'd still have courts, etc. But don't act horrified at that. Eminent domain has been used many times in the US, it's not a novel concept. Foreclosure is also state-sanctioned and common.

But there are SIGNIFICANT interests who want to horde real property anonymously. "Fixing zoning" is not a solution to the problems that causes. The large-landlord/acquire-and-leave-vacant-waiting-for-appreciation interests are the very same interests that would BENEFIT from less zoning restrictions and the Manhattanization of more places, and corresponding increase in real property values per sqft of land. But the reason we don't make ownership of property more clear, or crack down on hording, is because those interests don't want us to.

"Simpler: a straight wealth tax that funds first time homebuyer incentives." - so we've got more inflation of property prices through financial incentives but actually let's not bother because guess who ALSO doesn't want a "straight wealth tax!" (And, of course, taxes aren't wildly worked around in this country anyway.)

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#50

Post by amluto »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

> why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property Trivially worked around. Use an LLC. Have it bought in a relative’s name. Have it bought in a rando’s name with a bulletproof lease with a $1 rent-to-own option at its termination. Essentially, the property registry system becomes a farce. (You see this, for example, in India.) Simpler: a straight wealth ta…

This could be improved by changing the criterion: an actual human needs to be registered as living in that house and live there. LLCs, trusts, and other entities don’t count.

If people want to split their time, fine, let them have as many houses as they want, declare what fraction of their time is spent in each one, and get that fractional credit for each one.

Worried about a couple taking the credit for each person separately? Fine, make the credit only reduce a fixed amount of tax per person — that $200M fancy house doesn’t get all of the tax waived just because one human is in it.

Post reply on HN