Paywall removed: https://archive.is/MbQYG
I think there is quite an easy solution to the housing issue we’re facing: exponential tax increase per property.
There is no reason for someone to own more than one property in a city. No reason at all. But even if you could find one - let’s say the first 2-3 properties (defined as houses/apartments of less than X area each) have regular taxes. But then? Then it gets retarded. 500k more per year for the fourth one. 4 mil extra a year for the fifth. 50 mil extra for the sixth. One billion for the seventh. You’re a property developer? You have until 2 years after the property was finisbed to make sure someone has bought every little bit of it, otherwise that 40 apartment building will end up costing you twice the foreign debt.
Can’t pay the taxes? You can always sell the place, at a fair market value. Let’s say your two uncles died in a short timespan and they both left you their houses, but you had some property already and now you’re up to 5 residential properties but you’re not prepared to pay the extra few million. You can always list their houses. Every month they are listed and don’t get bought, you reduce the price by 5%. Overvaluing the property gets it confiscated - you surrender your property to the state, which then distributes it to those in need in a lottery. You can also opt to just give away some of your less desirable properties directly instead of trying to sell them.
But no, that’d be sudden death for all the retards who keep building, all the fuck heads who keep buying and holding, and all the politicians whose pockets get padded for listening to whichever lobby.
“Landlords say that would push them to sell.”
So, you’re saying it would increase available housing supply? Sounds great.
Oh, and for the record, they will not, in fact, sell. Most housing in Ontario is still under a 2% annual rent increase limit. Landlords are doing just fine (and by “Just fine” I of course mean “We have a national housing crisis because landlords are hoarding all the available supply”)
The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.
The problem is raising rents are always due to lack of supply. I used to be very supportive of rent control but realized it’s just a shitty band-aid on the real problem - lack of housing.
It will keep rents low for a bit, but won’t fix the fundamental problem that allows high rents in the first place: and people will still struggle to find housing.
And you can bet your ass that any new will have massively increased rent or prices to compensate.
The real fix, like everywhere else, is to kick out the nimbys and allow building again
It will force them to sell, which will perhaps make buying a home more affordable, so less people have to pay rent and more people pay a mortgage on a home they bought.
It generally doesn’t though. People who rent aren’t suddenly going to be able to afford to buy. If you look at cities that do these policies, homeownership rates do go up, but the entire lower income community is basically evicted from the city. It’s basically accelerated gentrification.
While I sympathize with high rent prices, it’s still no different than say someone who owns a Wedding venue and rents out the location, tables, chairs, etc. They paid for the initial investment and are making money off of it through rental. That’s how investments work. Otherwise, what benefit is there to owning it outside of selling it outright.
Yes, but it isn’t fair to expect anyone to provide housing at their own personal loss. I agree that people need homes, and we’re on the same page there. However, consider it this way. If you could earn more by charging a higher amount, would you charge less out of generosity, or would you try to maximize your income? This applies to anything. If you’re selling a car, would you sell it for less just to be nice, or would you sell it to the highest bidder? People need cars too. You see my point?
You are mistaken. I mean, I got married, and I rented a space for it. I payed it once. It’s 20 years behind me. It was a one time deal. The two have nothing to do with each other. You’re obviously kinda dumb. Or lazy. Or both. I mean, come one, that’s your comment? It’s so stupid. *edit really with the hate on this comment? Maybe I need to expand to make it clear that this person is an idiot. Rent a home to people: You lock them into a contract that is usually 12 months or more, they have to pay you all that time, plus, if they decide they don’t want to move at the end of the contract, they just stay there and the landlord doesn’t have to do jack shit. No painting or sprucing up. Rent out a wedding venue: one time deal agreed upon. Owner actually has to keep up the space where people get married, actually has to work for the money because the people get married there, have the event, and leave because that’s a whole different fucking thing. Bottom line of my comment: landlords just live off other people paying them money with little effort, whereas owners of a special occasion space actually have to work hard at attracting new customers, not renters who are going to live in the space. Are we really this stupid now that I had to explain that? I mean, really. People seem to be taking a stupid pill today.
Well, the British government has introduced a lot of changes recently, that made the landlord lives harder and landlords did start to sell. Now we have a situation, where people fight over places to rent, most places don’t even get advertised, people take them without viewings and rent prices have skyrocketed. All while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced. And, of course, homelessness is through the roof.
landlords did start to sell
while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced
I’m not sure how those two things can coexist. So landlords started selling but then nobody that owned just one property sold so despite the influx of properties being listed for sale, the stock reduced? So there’s fewer rental units which has people trying to get into them but there aren’t more people purchasing the properties?
These types of policies also affect the types of units that get built. If rental units are a risky business move, then more construction will go towards larger single family homes, which are 1) less space efficient (fewer units), but 2) much more expensive (so the builder gets their money’s worth)
The other thing is with rent control, housing stock will decrease because people will not move. If you are in a rent controlled unit, you’re very strongly incentivised to never leave : because while your rent has been grandfathered to a low price, when you move you’ll suddenly starting paying the inflated rates everyone else has been paying to offset the sub-market rents you had. Live in the same place long enough and this could be a 1000% increase.
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
That’s a good question. But keep in mind that there are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.
That’s-the-point.gif
