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

51–60 of 137 posts

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#51

Post by lesuorac »

t-writescode wrote: post #23
smiley1437 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the equity is locked away on the home until they sell. Some people get reverse mortgages so they can spend some of the equity of the home while they still live in it: https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/...

This is the same tax trick that the obscenely wealthy use with their stock portfolios. It's a "fantastic" way of accessing accrued wealth without paying taxes on it. I think I would prefer that we investigate this more thoroughly, as well, to reduce some of these tricks that further stratify the haves and the have-nots.

The thing being omissed here is that there's a cost-basic step-up when you die.

So, if the value of the home increased by say 2x the taxes on it are 0 because the cost-basis on it isn't the price your parents bought it for; it's the price when they died and you got it.

This works out a lot better for stocks because when you created the company and gave yourself a million stock units for a total of $1 (not each) and those stocks appreciated to be $300 each that's a ton of capital gains. Except when you die and it's stepped up its not. -- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stepupinbasis.asp

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#52

Post by downrightmike »

ww520 wrote: post #11
jmyeet wrote: post #2

We need to stop treating real restate--especially residential real estate--as a mechanism for creating wealth. there are enough homeowners that they vote for politicians and policies that will increase the value of their "investments". All this does is simply steal money from the next generation. Our entire economic system is designed to transfer wealth from the young and poor and the old and wealthy. There is a dist…

"Social Housing" sounds like a bad idea. Whenever something is "socially owned," it means it is controlled by a few who have wormed their way into the power position to control whom get to utilize that something. It comes down to who decides who can live in this social housing, and whether one could be kicked out by the whim of some bureaucrats or some committees. It's the HOA nightmare multiplies 100 times. Basicall…

Then just call it what it is, a dorm.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#53

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

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…

This isn't a distribution problem.

We don't have enough pie (houses).

We need more houses.

Not a campaign to distribute a massive shortage slightly more evenly.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#54

Post by panick21_ »

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…

Because it doesn't solve any actual problems. People owning more then 1 property simply aren't the primary issue.

People can politically fuck around with occupancy laws and all this other stuff, non of it solves the problem.

We know how to solve the problem, there is no mystery. Its simply a political problem to implement it.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #47
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> sick of rent control being vilified

Not vilifying it. Saying that tracking who is the legal owner and beneficiary of a property is tough.

Given the present market state, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a tax measure increased rents.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

amluto wrote: post #50
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…

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…

> an actual human needs to be registered as living in that house and live there

Relatives. Again, these measures have been implemented across the world. Miraculously, nobody owns two homes.

In cities, where competition for land is fiercest, I would further fully expect the tax to be borne by tenants. Because nothing was fundamentally fixed about the supply-demand mismatch.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#57

Post by bongodongobob »

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…

The real, genuine answer is that the rich run the world and don't want that so they'll convince poor people it's actually bad for them. This works for any issue. It ensures that completely sound ideas get shot down. See "muh freedom", "it's bad for the economy", "communism", "taxing the rich hurts job growth", "this will just make rent go up" etc.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#58

Post by electriclove »

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…

People want to come up with all kinds of reasons to poo poo this… but it really is what needs to be done to start improving things. In CA, owner occupied homes get a minuscule reduction in their property tax. Same mechanism can be used

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#59

Post by majormajor »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #53
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…

This isn't a distribution problem. We don't have enough pie (houses). We need more houses. Not a campaign to distribute a massive shortage slightly more evenly.

What's the reason that, with office occupancies down in so many places, there isn't a big push for conversion of commercial zoning to residential multi-family? Incentive programs to reward converting vacant spaces? Penalty taxes for holding vacant office space instead of selling it to someone who will figure out something to do with it?

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#60

Post by zizee »

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 wouldn’t bat an eye buying a house in my partner or a parent’s name if it saved 3x property taxes.

That sounds like the policy had the desired effect. I.e home ownership is spread out across many people.

Those people cannot then own properties without being subject to those extra taxes. They'd be giving something up to help you, so would presumably benefiting somehow from your scheme.

Post reply on HN