Hacker News Reader

Comment by darioush | Hacker News Reader

It obviously matters because then demand for housing speculation will be bounded by population density instead of greed, and corporations will not be able to do things like own double digits of the housing supply in some large metro areas:

https://www.coreysdigs.com/real-estate/who-really-owns-the-u...

These estimates are for entities owning more than 1000 homes.

View on HN

My point isn't that I don't think a luxury tax isn't a horrible idea, I just don't think it'll solve the problem. If there is a profitable way to remove housing to create a shortage, there is an economic incentive for everyone who is able to participate to do so. So, it doesn't matter if one entity owns 1000 house or 500 people own 2 houses, the incentives are there to remove housing from the market.

Sure it does since luxury tax can be 10%-25% of property value. Let's see who wants to hold on to property then. And if they do they are paying their dues to society.

When they are "removed" and owned by more people, presumably this is a more efficient allocation of the same amount of houses to more people, which is a solution for the housing problem.

Again, it doesn't matter if one person owns 1000 houses or 500 people own two and rent one of them. The incentive system is to increase the shortage, and without addressing that incentive then the population of homeowners (most of the electorate) will not support increased development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com