Opinion Easy solution to the housing shortage

[Rob Battisti]

Can't they just progressively tax each house a person (or company) owns?

So your first house has very low taxes, because you need a place to live.

But of you own a second house, it's taxed a little higher. A third house is taxed even more, a 4th house even more than that, and so on.

That way more people can afford a first house but if they want to keep using homes as income properties then at some point it no longer makes economic sense.

You wouldn't have people trying to own 50 houses, nor would you have big corporations buying thousands of homes and driving up the prices.

What would be the drawback?

Which normal person owns 50 houses?

 

[nostradumbass]

Which normal person owns 50 houses?

Bernie

 

[joy2day]

You guys will think of anything to avoid just letting people build more houses won't you?

That's a pretty tough proposition in places like CA where there are just too many regulations to build enough houses, and there is a big fight when it comes to reducing those regulations (environmental impact and such). They built more than twice as many houses in the last year in Texas than CA (when CA has way more people and a way bigger housing crisis) mostly because Texas doesn't have all of those regulations.

 

[Fedorgasm]

Which normal person owns 50 houses?

Not many normal people, but the Chinese investors do.

Also companies like Zillow that bought 30,000 houses. Blackrock owns even more than that.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

an easier way would get rid of 30-50 million illegals and their children. Immediately free up supply, lowering demand

 

[Islam Imamate]

You guys?

Not sure who you're lumping me in with.

Everyone else who won't admit that building more houses is the solution.

Anyway, building more houses won't solve the problem if some giant corporations can simply buy them up.

Part of the reason they buy those houses is because lack of supply makes them attractive investments.

Once built, the houses just need to be affordable.

Nah not really, even if the new housing seems unaffordable it still helps reduce overall housing costs. Rich people move out of existing housing into the new luxury housing which opens it up for others.

I think it's a bit more complicated than corporation own house = bad.

It is but good luck convincing the median voter of that.

That's a pretty tough proposition in places like CA where there are just too many regulations to build enough houses, and there is a big fight when it comes to reducing those regulations (environmental impact and such). They built more than twice as many houses in the last year in Texas than CA (when CA has way more people and a way bigger housing crisis) mostly because Texas doesn't have all of those regulations.

So then the solution there is to cut those regulations and let people build housing.

 

[joy2day]

So then the solution there is to cut those regulations and let people build housing.

There have been serious efforts to do that for a while now in CA. The problem is that “regulations” are really a pile of different systems with different political constituencies. Between zoning, environmental regulations, unions, historic preservations, etc. you have an extremely difficult way forward on this issue, which is really a bummer.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Start with the obvious and block foreigners from owning homes along with billion dollar corporations

 

[Osculater]

My solution is commie blocks, but we can't have that in Freedomerica.

The projects

 

[Osculater]

We just call those projects in the states.

 

[scoopj]

Can't they just progressively tax each house a person (or company) owns?

So your first house has very low taxes, because you need a place to live.

But of you own a second house, it's taxed a little higher. A third house is taxed even more, a 4th house even more than that, and so on.

That way more people can afford a first house but if they want to keep using homes as income properties then at some point it no longer makes economic sense.

You wouldn't have people trying to own 50 houses, nor would you have big corporations buying thousands of homes and driving up the prices.

What would be the drawback?

This sounds like it was written in 1983 by a 23 year old.

 

[Fedorgasm]

This sounds like it was written in 1983 by a 23 year old.

Oh you mean back before the education standards were lowered? Thanks!

 

[italiamusica]

Nothing is going to change.

Every rich person and mega corporation are buying up all the property and land they can, people are just going to rent forever and never actually own anything anymore.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Nothing is going to change.

Every rich person and mega corporation are buying up all the property and land they can, people are just going to rent forever and never actually own anything anymore.

Why would things not change? I mean Trump almost withdrew troops from Germany the end of his first term. Elections are volatile compared to what they were. People vote for change. As soon soon as the Orange is out stuff is gonna get wild in a good way.

 

[ocfightfan]

Build baby build. 3D printed houses for the masses.

 

[Stoic1]

In this thread we identify the real estate investors, property owners, and the renters.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

an easier way would get rid of 30-50 million illegals and their children. Immediately free up supply, lowering demand

DoorDash in shambles

 

[shunyata]

In this thread we identify the real estate investors, property owners, and the renters.

And we try to come up with a weird real estate based work around to avoid simply returning to previously used US marginal tax rates for the highest income earners.

 

[chardog]

You guys will think of anything to avoid just letting people build more houses won't you?

Progressive states like California are the most difficult places to build homes, the housing shortage is a built in feature of the state.

Graham Stephan has a video on how California destroyed him


It’s not a matter of bad luck

When the regulatory process is more painful than the process of building a shortage is only natural

 

[Islam Imamate]

Progressive states like California are the most difficult places to build homes, the housing shortage is a built in feature of the state.

Graham Stephan has a video on how California destroyed him


It’s not a matter of bad luck

When the regulatory process is more painful than the process of building a shortage is only natural

Yes I'm familiar with that argument and agree completely.

Just look across the "skyline" of the SanFran and you'll see virtually no skyscrapers despite this being one of the wealthiest parts of the country

Newsome passed since reforms over the last few years to deal with this but that takes time to take effect and NIMBYs have other tools to block housing. Not that I'm a huge Newsome fan but he did move the state in the right direction on this one issue.