Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

You are proposing to remove taxation on a bull market (property)? This would inflate prices even more, as investors make a run for nice tax-free properties. It doesn't make sense, sorry.

You need to remove incentives to invest in property altogether. It's one of the worst and most unproductive markets, and not even a market in practice because everyone needs a home. My personal pope-emperor utopia would forbid companies from owning residential buildings, and tax individuals 10% of house value yearly on any house (with the first two exempted). Redevelopment should be allowed only when the area is in clear state of abandon, with strict rules on the amount of commercial space that can replace residential space.

The property market needs to die -- and I say that as a homeowner.

View on HN

I'm talking about taxes on personal residences, used as residences. I don't particularly want to argue in this post about what taxes might apply to second/third/fourth/investment/etc houses, or about the desirability of using excise taxes to control behavior.

In the context of property used as a residence, I'm suggesting that property taxes produce undesirable effects, and that other forms of taxation might potentially work better.

But that's what inflates property markets -- investors buying and selling multiple properties, realtors identifying and driving growth in this or that neighbourhood. London, SF, Sydney or Vancouver are all awash in investment cash for properties, that's what drives prices.

"In the context of property used as a residence", most European countries do not tax first homes, end of story. It doesn't stop prices from growing.

> "In the context of property used as a residence", most European countries do not tax first homes, end of story.

I'm not talking about sales taxes on the sale price of a home; the US doesn't tax those either. I'm talking about property taxes, as in the taxes typically assessed by a local government to property owners as a percentage of the appraised value of their property. I'm saying that such property taxes produce various undesirable effects (as mentioned several comments up).

That's orthogonal to questions of how to deal with people owning, buying, or selling multiple homes. It may or may not make sense to apply different rules in those cases, such as not providing an exemption for sales taxes on such properties. (Though you'd have to be careful there to not cause problems with rental prices.)

> I'm not talking about sales taxes on the sale price of a home; the US doesn't tax those either.

Actually it is taxed as a capital gain ( subject to some deductions )

Here's an idea. Make utility services scale with people density. Relax restrictions on how much they can profit off sqft. Single home dwellers are penalized with increased upkeep costs and higher density buildings are encouraged.

What? That's crap. Why should single home dwellers have to pay more for water and electricity and gas just because their house is bigger? Then you'll have apartment dwellers running the heat with the windows open.

Utilities should be paid per-use, just as it is now. People with bigger houses are naturally going to pay more because a bigger house usually needs more power/fuel for HVAC, unless their house is more efficient. Also, we need to incentivize making homes more energy-efficient, and regressive policies like yours discourage efficiency. Smaller isn't always better; crappy old small houses and apartments can easily use far more energy than new McMansions.

And that leads me to one big problem in the rental market is that landlords never spend a dime on improving or renovating homes for better energy-efficiency, because the tenant has to pay all the utilities.

Water and electricity and gas are generally less cost-efficient to provide to less-dense neighborhoods, as the length of wire & pipe (and maintenance overhead) needed to serve a given number of residences is significantly higher. This is likewise why electricity and phone service were not provided to rural areas until subsidized by the government by taxing urban dwellers.

To new neighborhoods, you're right. To existing neighborhoods, you're wrong: the infrastructure is already there. There's no reason to raise rates for people for something that's already paid for. That's like adding a toll to a road that's been there for 50 years; it's just profiteering.

Maintenance is not going to be any higher for lower density; it's not like you see electric utility workers in the suburbs constantly, repairing stuff. And access is more difficult in higher-density housing too: in a suburb, you just drive the truck up to the transformer, but in a large building, it isn't that easy.

As for rural areas, there's a huge difference between urban and rural areas (where houses are miles apart), and urban and suburban areas (where houses are 20 feet apart).

> And that leads me to one big problem in the rental market is that landlords never spend a dime on improving or renovating homes for better energy-efficiency, because the tenant has to pay all the utilities.

If that were the case they could charge 'fixed utilities' at a reasonable price and then when they upgrade for energy efficiency they reap those gains.

You mean force the landlords to pay for the utilities? Doing that means the tenants then blast the heat with the windows and doors wide open: they have no incentive to be economical with their energy usage. All it takes is one bad tenant like that with $2000/month utility bills and the landlord has to declare bankruptcy.

Why not just have some kind of regulation requiring rental dwellings to meet certain energy efficiency standards? And combine this with some programs to help landlords upgrade, perhaps with low-interest loans or something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com