251–260 of 613 posts
> The LVT also has an appealing underlying moral framework: The luck to own a piece of land that happens to appreciate — say, you bought a house in San Francisco before the tech boom — should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value. This would put gentrification on overdrive. Did the author think this one through?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> providing no service Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. I think a land tax would be great to curb speculation. Buying property, not providing any service (neither by renting nor capital investment in improvements), and just pocketing the appreciation, I agree, that's parasitic on the community. FWIW - I don't think a landtax would create a meaningful tilt towards more affordable home owners…
> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. And tapeworms are attractively slimming!
If the same person serves both roles then they are wearing two hats. Just as if someone were a stockholder and an employee of the same company.
Local governments, which have been granted near unchecked authority by state governments, are entirely captured by homeowners. I'm not fully clear on this statement. Is it putting forth that local governments shouldn't be controlled by the people who are local, or is it saying that homeowners hold more power than renters? If the former, that's just silly. If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as eve…
If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there to block those new homes from being built to limit supply of the asset they own. The people who would vote in favor of the new homes don't actually get to vote, since they don't live there yet.
aka, somebody else deciding that there should be more homes.
I think that's the wrong perspective to take. I don't want an authority to decide this - the locals should make their own choices (right or wrong).
Local governments, which have been granted near unchecked authority by state governments, are entirely captured by homeowners. I'm not fully clear on this statement. Is it putting forth that local governments shouldn't be controlled by the people who are local, or is it saying that homeowners hold more power than renters? If the former, that's just silly. If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as eve…
If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there to block those new homes from being built to limit supply of the asset they own. The people who would vote in favor of the new homes don't actually get to vote, since they don't live there yet.
Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it might a bit because your building might increase the value of properties nearby, but that's generally a pretty weak effect so it would have a small impact on your taxes That sounds like a fantastic way for a developer to force out all of "the poors" around them by developing an area and making the value of their land skyrocket. Since they cant hold it they have to sell which kicks them out of their home for less…
This already happens in the midwest, where taxes are based on appraised value and someone from New York buying 160 acres of hunting land for some overpriced amount causes the small landholder next door to have to pay triple taxes.
There is something deeply wrong with the fact that you can buy-to-rent a property and immediately turn up a profit, essentially inserting yourself as a parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service, and extracting an economic rent.
Is it deeply wrong that you can go on stock market and buy part of company and immediately turn up profit when they pay dividends. Essentially inserting yourself as parasitic middleman in the process, providing no service and extracting an economic rent... Or doing same by buying existing debt?
A landlord has a similar risk associated with the property, and not just in loss of value but other real risks, such as lawsuits, etc. The stockholder is protected from many risks and can't lose more than his investment (ignoring cases where he owns so much of the company that the corporate veil can be pierced) - but a landlord easily can - especially with a mortgage, but even without.
Insurance can be purchased to mitigate some of those risks, but few do beyond what a bank may require.
Let's take the example of landlords of property in areas threatened by climate change; real risks exist there that the renter doesn't have to worry about beyond considering moving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who has been a landlord can attest "providing no service" isn't true at all.
This. 1. Immediately turn a profit would mean that monthly rent is higher than the cost of the property. This is not a thing. If they person you are replying to means “cash flow positive” then sure in 20-30 years the renter will have paid off the property for the landlord. 2. Renting provides choices. Tenant wants to move across the country or across the street? No problem: ride out your lease and move when ready. If…
The majority of cash single-family landlords are because they're paying a mortgage on 2005 prices whilst charging 2020s rent. But to properly do the accounting you'd want to compare selling the house and buying it again vs the rents.
Buying is usually worse than renting unless you value the relative freedom to do what you want with the property and even then renters have the ability to change the house they're in (unless they're effectively stuck because of grandfathered in lower-than-market rates).
The idea that housing problems are caused by landlords is obviously false on its face, as each landlorded house already has people living in it. Speculators sitting on empty inventory and refusing to landlord, now that could be a cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Imagine I'm a landlord, and I have a vacant lot I'm renting to a tenant who's got a mobile home parked there. What's going to happen if a Land Value Tax is imposed on me? Well, I'm already charging as much as the market will bear. If I charge any more, my tenant will move out. That's rich. As someone who is a landlord, I'm already charging what two owners ago was charging when they died and the city won't let raise…
LVT isn't a market distortion. Private landowners getting rich by not doing anything is a market distortion. If you buy a building (say that isn't rent controlled) and over 10 years the market rate for rents in the area doubles, you didn't make that happen basically at all but get to reap the rewards. That doesn't make any sense -- the community should get that money as the community created it! On the other hand if…
>You didn't make that happen basically at all but get to reap the rewards.
The landlord did make that happen by making their property available for rent to others. Rents would be even higher if they took it off the market. Don't forget who owns the land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The masses are asses. We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it. Thats called tyranny by the majority.
> We shouldn’t just do things because the most people want it. I actually agree. "Should" is such a terrible word that I don't think we should use it at all. But we do do the things that most people want, because that is by construction the primary desire on a societal scale. You are part of a bigger machine, whether you like it or not. > Thats called tyranny by the majority. Really funny that American neo-con reacti…
Local governments, which have been granted near unchecked authority by state governments, are entirely captured by homeowners. I'm not fully clear on this statement. Is it putting forth that local governments shouldn't be controlled by the people who are local, or is it saying that homeowners hold more power than renters? If the former, that's just silly. If the latter, renters get the same one vote per person as eve…
> renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else It's not just directly voting for a city councilor, planning board member, etc. that counts. Showing up to public meetings to show support or disagreement with something can do much to pressure those elected officials. But renters are going to have a much more difficult time showing solidarity for pro-development action, not only because of the difference i…