International Immigration explained ~62% of Denmark's 51% house price surge (1999–2016)

[KAZSoliloquy]

If you massively increase the demand, it is no surprise that prices are going up.

or, you could, you know, not allow them to artificially raise prices.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

or, you could, you know, not allow them to artificially raise prices.

Yes by not importing all the extra demand

 

[Islam Imamate]

You’re sitting here telling me that if a product has less demand on a fixed supply the price goes up?

No, I'm telling you that many cities and states with populations on the decline end up struggling and that purposefully doing that is bad. It's also interesting how you only acknowledge supply and demand in one direction when it comes to housing.

Btw even in declining cities land speculation is still a problem. Speculators sit on land and don't develop it in the hopes that when land prices go back up they can make a profit. In these hollowed cities like Detroit and St. Louis you'll find people parking their money in abandoned lots with no desire to invest, just waiting for prices to go back up.

 

[Rob Battisti]

No, I'm telling you that many cities and states with populations on the decline end up struggling and that purposefully doing that is bad. It's also interesting how you only acknowledge supply and demand in one direction when it comes to housing.

Btw even in declining cities land speculation is still a problem. Speculators sit on land and don't develop it in the hopes that when land prices go back up they can make a profit. In these hollowed cities like Detroit and St. Louis you'll find people parking their money in abandoned lots with no desire to invest, just waiting for prices to go back up.

I’m always in favor of more houses. I simply said you can also reduce the immigration in an area to reduce demand and reduce prices.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So are you saying that you are for both, taxing land that perhaps isn't taxed currently and taxing those that do pay land tax more?

No in theory all lands is taxed at the same rate. In practice sometimes you might have to accept exemptions to make tax reform in this direction politically viable but if it was solely up to me I'd tax all land ownership. Remember in theory I'd also use revenue from LVT to pay for rate cuts on income, corporate, and capital gains taxes.

The idea is to shift the tax burden from workers and businesses to land owners. Many of us are some combination or all three of those things, like the sole proprietor of a non-employee firm who owns the land their business is on, so the point is to incentive wealth creation through labor and capital than rent seeking by cutting taxes on the former. Like you said earlier LVT encourages productive land use and that's because it discourages rent seeking and land speculation which extract value without creating it.

As to your point about developing farms and nature reserves, in theory that's where zoning reform comes in. I think it's better for cities to build upwards on already developed land near the city center than to constantly sprawl outwards with low density residential developments which eat up those farms and nature preserves. It also makes city services more expensive per acre and contributes significantly to municipal debt. For a visual representation:

 

[Islam Imamate]

I’m always in favor of more houses.

Not in practice, you're a NIMBY remember?

I simply said you can also reduce the immigration in an area to reduce demand and reduce prices.

And I think that's dumb because it hurts the wider economy.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Not in practice, you're a NIMBY remember?

And I think that's dumb because it hurts the wider economy.

Not in totality. I disagree with the destruction of common sense zoning.

We need more legal immigration. I’ve said this many times .

 

[Islam Imamate]

That’s always been my opposition to the LVT. On its face, it always seems absolutely asinine due to the fact that our system will simply squeeze and squeeze until there is nothing left.

Part of the point of LVT is to cut other, worse taxes like income and capital gains taxes which would likely benefit Americans generally. More people depend on income and capital gains than on rent and land speculation.

This is also dumb because he wants no zoning either so who is to say the land shouldn’t be taxed at a corporate, agricultural or residential rate if I can build anything on it? If I have a lot that I intend to build in the future, that is next to an office complex, how can that be fairly assessed? How can I be expected to pay taxes on it as if there was an office building there?

You're completely misunderstanding the LVT, it doesn't change based on the land use. The whole point is to tax only the land value so that any labor or capital gains income the landowner generates is taxed at a significantly lower rate if at all. Therefore if they make productive use of the land, such as building an office building on it, they will better be able to pay the LVT when compared to someone who dedicates it to an unproductive use like surface parking.

How does this not take land away from the average Joe and give it to firms like Blackrock?

It takes land away from land speculators and slumlords who want to park their money in land ownership without investing any capital or labor into it and with no intention to make productive use of it. It then redistributes it to those who either engage in productive land use like business owners or workers who take advantage of prime locations for access to better paying jobs.

Of course, Islam is in favor of Blackrock buying all properties so they can build tiny homes so it doesn’t shock me he loves this idea.

I'm in favor of YIMBY style zoning reform so I'd rather have more housing and less homelessness but NIMBYs like you disagree. If you guys succeed in continuing to choke housing supply then yes it'd be funny to see your scarcity mindset work against you as you get outbid by investment firms.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Yes by not importing all the extra demand

supply and demand are artificial concepts based on buying something for the cheapest you possibly can, including labor, and extracting the most profit out of it as possible. they are not concrete numbers, they change every second. this is because they aren't based on anything but how much you can possibly take advantage of someone, financially.

legislation can and would remove supply and demand entirely if profit caps were placed on goods and labor, and only adjusted for inflation.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not in totality. I disagree with the destruction of common sense zoning.

What is "common sense zoning"? What zoning reforms would you support if any?

We need more legal immigration. I’ve said this many times .

I don't think in this conversation was there any distinction between legal and illegal immigration made and you seemed to be arguing against immigration earlier so what exactly is your point here? Not entirely clear.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I believe what he is saying is that land value tax (LVT) will encourage more building of homes so that the people that own the undeveloped land will get a better tax rate.

LVT encourgaes building and renovation on unused land, at least here in Pennsylvania, because we have a two-tiered tax system on land and property. But, there are exemptions, and that is really the heart of my question to @Islam Imamate... removing exemptions.

What exemptions do they have in Pennsylvania?

But, really, all this is driving here in Pennsylvania is the destruction of farmland and wooded areas for the animals as well as the municipalities prioritizing and at times only allowing the building of 55+ communities...

Because then they can collect the tax revenue with reduced services expenditures because 55+ people don't have kids in schools.

Im not accusing @Islam Imamate of this.... but a lot of this is also double-speak for "be more dependent on the government" because they want to pack as many tiny homes on a parcel as they can so as to reduce peoples' ability to grow their own food, keep food-producing animals, etc.

I think allowing for dense housing to absorb demand closer to the city center and LVT which discourages land speculation and rent seeking would in theory help preserve farmland.

In fairness it would discourage a certain kind of hobby farming. Some rich people really like the aesthetic of the farming lifestyle and so they buy farms as vacation homes. They're technically businesses but that's only so the owner can write off expenses, they're really for leisure and they make their real money elsewhere. The fact that our tax code incentivizes parking money in unproductive land encourages this.

Someone like that might end up having to sell of parts of that hobby farm off to those who would make more productive use of it like a small to medium sized family farmer who intends to really live off the land or maybe even a corporate farm.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

What exemptions do they have in Pennsylvania?


I think allowing for dense housing to absorb demand closer to the city center and LVT which discourages land speculation and rent seeking would in theory help preserve farmland.

In fairness it would discourage a certain kind of hobby farming. Some rich people really like the aesthetic of the farming lifestyle and so they buy farms as vacation homes. They're technically businesses but that's only so the owner can write off expenses, they're really for leisure and they make their real money elsewhere. The fact that our tax code incentivizes parking money in unproductive land encourages this.

Someone like that might end up having to sell of parts of that hobby farm off to those who would make more productive use of it like a small to medium sized family farmer who intends to really live off the land or maybe even a corporate farm.

I don't know how it works in other states, possibly the same, but in Pennsylvania LVT is a local policy that is recommended by the state.

Various towns and cities have adopted it over the years to combat blight with a lot of success. Allentown and even our capital, Harrisburg. I'm not against LVT at all.

Exemptions are made by city or town, but typically includes public-use lands and lands owned by non-profits and charitable organizations.

The one thing that seems to be universal in Pennsylvania among the towns that implement LVT is that effective property tax rates go down after implementation of the LVT. That is something I like.

I live in the suburbs, so the majority of vacant or under-utilized land belongs to once-large family farms that only now utilize a portion of the acreage as, like you said, a hobby farm. So the farms are first to go, getting sold off and parceled out. That is something I don't like.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't know how it works in other states, possibly the same, but in Pennsylvania LVT is a local policy that is recommended by the state.

Various towns and cities have adopted it over the years to combat blight with a lot of success. Allentown and even our capital, Harrisburg. I'm not against LVT at all.

Exemptions are made by city or town, but typically includes public-use lands and lands owned by non-profits and charitable organizations.

The one thing that seems to be universal in Pennsylvania among the towns that implement LVT is that effective property tax rates go down after implementation of the LVT. That is something I like.

Your state might have the most towns with LVT IIRC. In those towns it's a supplement to property tax and applied at very low rates alongside reduced property taxes. That is one of the better things about the LVT, it encourages productive land use so as you collect more revenue from LVT you can cut other taxes that discourage productivity like property or income tax.

I'm not against exemptions like the one you mentioned though I wonder if it might be to apply the land tax across the board with no exceptions and afterwards fund critical non-profits or public goods with the revenue.

I live in the suburbs, so the majority of vacant or under-utilized land belongs to once-large family farms that only now utilize a portion of the acreage as, like you said, a hobby farm. So the farms are first to go, getting sold off and parceled out. That is something I don't like.

I think that is more likely to be caused by land speculation encouraged by the existing system of property taxation.

In theory under an LVT you wouldn't want a vacant lot because you're going to pay the same tax whether you use it or not while under a property tax system you get penalized precisely for investing in the land as that increases the property value. So it might be that those vacant lots are owned by land speculators waiting to sell off only when property values rebound.

In fact for land speculators its arguably actually better that the lot has a rundown building rather than be truly vacant. The dilapidated building decreases the property value as anyone looking to make productive use of it must tear down the building, that makes it cheaper for the speculators not only to buy at point of sale but also because they pay less in taxes on it. Meanwhile the family farm necessarily invests in their land increasing the property tax in proportion to that investment. No wonder they might sell off a few acres to land speculators, it gives them an infusion of cash and reduces their tax bill.

I agree that's bad though, we want a world where the unproductive like speculators and landlords sell land off to the productive like workers and business owners who make better use of it, not the other way around.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Interesting, yet scary. It reminds me of a story a friend of mine at the MMA gym told me about. He is originally from Brazil.

He told me that the mayor in his town allowed a big construction company to build too high and too close to his apartment building...so what happened? It became too hot, and no possibility for a cooling breeze or cross-breeze.

- He is from Balneário Camboriú? That place has the buindings architeture that Gotham city pokes fun and alerts since his conception. Thre ugliest buinding you can think about it.

 

[SandisLL]

I’m always in favor of more houses. I simply said you can also reduce the immigration in an area to reduce demand and reduce prices.

You are typical maybe pro brexit or redneck IMHO.

Stuff alone that you think about possibility that some poor immigrants might rise mortgage sales and long term rent prices shows your delusional level and this is easy to see.

Such prices are rising private investments and pensions funds, banks etc and this does have nothing with some supposedly poor immigrants.

Brexit dreamers already are tasting rel life outcome vs empty populism for plebs.

 

[SandisLL]

Mortgage is considered as A level investment by banks, private pensions funds and private investments funds.

So, ofc for such investors investing in mortgage loves clients - borrowers who might pay first payment more % from current mortgage price. More % = always is better.

Because if you can't pay payments according schedule they will tell piss off and will get next borrower.
Due to market prices fluctations ofc best warrant is to get more pre payment %...

Ofc damn a lot of other variables in game are actual.

Also ofc majority of mainstream ppl never had bothered to read mortgage property laws in Denmark, cos too lazy ....therefore easily might think what brainwashed want them to think. Cos laziness.

Ofc tourists and immigrants in high demand areas are rising hostels, hotels and short term rent prices as I had mentioned long ago.

However random medium class immigrant does have 0 tools to increase your flat or villa price in Denmark. For reasons not lazy ppl does knows long ago.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You are typical maybe pro brexit or redneck IMHO.

Stuff alone that you think about possibility that some poor immigrants might rise mortgage sales and long term rent prices shows your delusional level and this is easy to see.

Such prices are rising private investments and pensions funds, banks etc and this does have nothing with some supposedly poor immigrants.

Brexit dreamers already are tasting rel life outcome vs empty populism for plebs.

Brexiters voting for something that the government essentially completely ignored

 

[Andy Capp]

"Medium-Run Impacts of Immigration on the Housing Market: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Shift-Share Instrument" by Anna Piil Damm, Ahmad Hassani, Anil Kumar, and Juan Carlos Parra-Alvarez

Link to the study:

Medium-Run Impacts of Immigration on the Housing Market: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Shift-Share Instrument

ROCKWOOL Foundation

www.rfberlin.com

Key findings:

- A 1 percentage point rise in local immigration (over 5 years) boosts municipal private rents by 6% and house prices by 11%

- Immigration explained ~62% of Denmark's 51% house price surge (1999–2016), from index 1.49 to 2.25 (1992=100 base).

- At neighborhood level: 1pp immigration rise → 1.4% higher private rents, 2.2% higher house prices.

If you massively increase the demand, it is no surprise that prices are going up.

I'm not clicking on that shit, so, going only by what you quoted:

Do you seriously think a 6% rise in rents over 5 years is awful in some way? Ditto house prices. 11% over 5 years? OHHH NOOO rofl.

Anyway, correlation does not equal causation, and if you don't see a problem with the validity of something termed "quasi-experimental", you're just seeing what you want to see and there's no point in discussing the topic.

 

[lifelessheap]

No in theory all lands is taxed at the same rate. In practice sometimes you might have to accept exemptions to make tax reform in this direction politically viable but if it was solely up to me I'd tax all land ownership. Remember in theory I'd also use revenue from LVT to pay for rate cuts on income, corporate, and capital gains taxes.

The idea is to shift the tax burden from workers and businesses to land owners. Many of us are some combination or all three of those things, like the sole proprietor of a non-employee firm who owns the land their business is on, so the point is to incentive wealth creation through labor and capital than rent seeking by cutting taxes on the former. Like you said earlier LVT encourages productive land use and that's because it discourages rent seeking and land speculation which extract value without creating it.

As to your point about developing farms and nature reserves, in theory that's where zoning reform comes in. I think it's better for cities to build upwards on already developed land near the city center than to constantly sprawl outwards with low density residential developments which eat up those farms and nature preserves. It also makes city services more expensive per acre and contributes significantly to municipal debt. For a visual representation:

I hate people. I don't want my neighbor's noise or cockroaches. I want a yard and a garden and chickens. The world is huge. Stop trying to smash me together with others. Having acreage is literally the best.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Your state might have the most towns with LVT IIRC. In those towns it's a supplement to property tax and applied at very low rates alongside reduced property taxes. That is one of the better things about the LVT, it encourages productive land use so as you collect more revenue from LVT you can cut other taxes that discourage productivity like property or income tax.

I'm not against exemptions like the one you mentioned though I wonder if it might be to apply the land tax across the board with no exceptions and afterwards fund critical non-profits or public goods with the revenue.

I think that is more likely to be caused by land speculation encouraged by the existing system of property taxation.

In theory under an LVT you wouldn't want a vacant lot because you're going to pay the same tax whether you use it or not while under a property tax system you get penalized precisely for investing in the land as that increases the property value. So it might be that those vacant lots are owned by land speculators waiting to sell off only when property values rebound.

In fact for land speculators its arguably actually better that the lot has a rundown building rather than be truly vacant. The dilapidated building decreases the property value as anyone looking to make productive use of it must tear down the building, that makes it cheaper for the speculators not only to buy at point of sale but also because they pay less in taxes on it. Meanwhile the family farm necessarily invests in their land increasing the property tax in proportion to that investment. No wonder they might sell off a few acres to land speculators, it gives them an infusion of cash and reduces their tax bill.

I agree that's bad though, we want a world where the unproductive like speculators and landlords sell land off to the productive like workers and business owners who make better use of it, not the other way around.

Unproductive land speculators also equals people who buy lots with the intention of building but don’t have the monetary capability in the moment. This discourages normal people from building and limits construction to corporations.