I think it’s fine to use it as a speculation tool if you are living there. If not, then it should be a massive tax liability. Pressure people buying empty homes to either rent them to someone for cheap, live in them, or sell them.
this is precisely what NIMBYism is. People living in their own homes, who want to force up the value by preventing new homes from being constructed.
it’s also the reason for the crisis. without that attitude and all the zoning restrictions, our housing market would be much more cheap and flexible. but when you have towns that only permit like 50 new houses a a year, and the population is growing at 3x that, you have a serious problem
The flip side is when your state mandates allowing 4-6 homes on regular SFH plots and then your property value goes up because you can now build more housing
Hell, just requiring HAVING a tenant would be great for starters because of how many empty homes there are. If you’ve got the empty homes, and a tax penalty for them being empty, suddenly they’d have to compete for tenants. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
Exactly this. Any sort of “is the tenant not being overcharged” check would be extra complexity that’s not strictly necessary anyway. Once more properties become available on the market (because their owners want to pay less property tax), rents naturally start going down. Just need the vacancy tax to be high enough. If it’s a tiny tax, it doesn’t make a change.
I think much more money is tied up in funds that indirectly own the houses. Common folk likely have some of their 401k tied up, knowingly or unknowingly.
Housing prices shouldn’t matter, except you can borrow against the valuation, making the hypothetical cost real. Also real estate taxes and insurance.
So your parents borrowed against the value of their home to put you through college. They could have also taken out parent plus loans to do the same thing. Why is this an argument for letting home prices soar?
As long as we refuse to decouple housing from a tool of speculation, we will not address affordable housing.
most people’s wealth is tied up in housing. so if you decouple that you will make most americans much poorer
I think it’s fine to use it as a speculation tool if you are living there. If not, then it should be a massive tax liability. Pressure people buying empty homes to either rent them to someone for cheap, live in them, or sell them.
this is precisely what NIMBYism is. People living in their own homes, who want to force up the value by preventing new homes from being constructed.
it’s also the reason for the crisis. without that attitude and all the zoning restrictions, our housing market would be much more cheap and flexible. but when you have towns that only permit like 50 new houses a a year, and the population is growing at 3x that, you have a serious problem
The flip side is when your state mandates allowing 4-6 homes on regular SFH plots and then your property value goes up because you can now build more housing
I think the concept of a tax penalty with some relief for having a tenant that isn’t being gouged sounds nice.
Hell, just requiring HAVING a tenant would be great for starters because of how many empty homes there are. If you’ve got the empty homes, and a tax penalty for them being empty, suddenly they’d have to compete for tenants. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
What we need it a mandated and enforced vacancy tax nationwide. Make it high enough to fix the housing crisis.
Exactly this. Any sort of “is the tenant not being overcharged” check would be extra complexity that’s not strictly necessary anyway. Once more properties become available on the market (because their owners want to pay less property tax), rents naturally start going down. Just need the vacancy tax to be high enough. If it’s a tiny tax, it doesn’t make a change.
Most homeowners only own the home they live in. For what it’s worth, housing prices don’t matter if you don’t intend to buy or sell.
I think much more money is tied up in funds that indirectly own the houses. Common folk likely have some of their 401k tied up, knowingly or unknowingly.
Housing prices shouldn’t matter, except you can borrow against the valuation, making the hypothetical cost real. Also real estate taxes and insurance.
yes, they very much do. most people aren’t selling their 401K anytime soon if they aren’t in their 60s.
but the value of that asset very much impacts their sense of financially security and their spending habits.
So your parents borrowed against the value of their home to put you through college. They could have also taken out parent plus loans to do the same thing. Why is this an argument for letting home prices soar?
you can’t take out loans if you have no collateral.
Yes you can take out parent plus loans without collateral. That’s their entire reason for existing.