I know there is data that if you compare short term rentals to houses on sale, the rentals are a very large percentage, like more than 30%, in big cities. More than enough to significantly influence house prices (to be higher). Which is why short term rentals and vacation properties should be relegated to commercial properties only.
Put a few mile ring around any city center and yes the land there is scarce. You would not want one or a small number of individuals buying up all or a lot of that land because other people want to live there too. Therefore do exponential taxation based on land they already own. Why is this confusing to you?
There are a large number of properties in big cities sitting empty due to people hoarding land/houses. Too much is anything more than your primary residence. It should be taxed exponentially with both number of secondary residences and size normalized to urban development around the property.
Vacation homes are an example of hoarding and should be taxed exponentially. Barcelona, for example, has already banned short term rentals starting 2029, and so has my home town, so there are at least some people in power who think like me, and I hope there will be many many more people with my mindset.
I mean, you can call it hoarding if you like, but that's not a very widely held opinion.
Spain is one of the last places on Earth I'd look to for economic policies. Enjoy your even higher unemployment and additional dying towns after attacking your only notable industry (tourism) I suppose.
There's plenty of housing available in places with no jobs, so mission accomplished in one sense!
When you ban "speculation" on an asset class, you're just telling owners (including creators) of that asset class that they will make less money if and when they sell.
Setting aside the "I know it when I see it" definition of speculation used by most people that changes as needed during a discussion and all the negative side effects that come with that, is telling people who produce a scarce asset that they will make less money when they sell it a good idea, or a bad idea?
Why do you assume that prices increasing faster than inflation is manipulation, and what is the definition of "normal changes in demand"?
Real estate historically hasn't appreciated faster than inflation over time. Supply constraints, historically low interest rates, and a couple other factors have changed that in a number of areas in the last couple decades, but not all. The Rust Belt is a prime example, yet for some reason that isn't relevant in these discussions.
It's hard to think of a market that is less free than housing, including electric utilities with the advent of solar. Probably pharmaceuticals? I'm sure there are a couple others. Calling it "totally free" is naive.
Because of how tightly coupled local taxation is to the real estate market, the political risk associated with angering local homeowners, and the regulatory capture performed by local government employees and supporters of the status quo, it's highly, highly regulated already in nearly every populated area of the US.
No, the easiest way to curb this is to make it easier to build homes so that supply is closer to the level of demand, not create even more policies that will reduce supply.
Controlling 11% of the rental market is not enough to manipulate it, and that's one of the most concentrated markets in the US if I remember correctly. It's not an actual issue. If those 3 companies are in fact colluding, use the existing laws against that to prosecute them instead of inventing more counterproductive policies.
Maybe severe capital controls and other heavy-handed and objectively unwise but politically desirable (for a certain group) financial policies aren't the best plan for maintaining a stable economy?
I wonder when Xi will come up with a witty one liner for that one.
Just make it easier to build houses. It's like the Bitter Lesson, but for regulation-loving progressives.
Also, buying or building and operating an apartment complex isn't speculation in general, unless you consider basically any financial investment speculation.
For homes, I don't know if there are. But I think taxes should be levied in line with incentives. If you place a wealth tax on property ownership, the only tangible thing that will happen is rents going up to offset. Since the tax applies to all landlords, it will be the closest thing to rent inflation.
What you really want to avoid is homes built but sitting empty. Whether that's a builder who can't sell at asking price, or a landlord not getting the rent they want doesn't matter. If the city sold a lot to you, they did so for improving home supply, not the developer's profits.
For commercial, my opinion was based on Louis Rossman's YouTube channel about New York. The hypothesis there is that loans are based on property value, which are tied to requested rent. Asking for a lower rent might mean they have to put up more collateral, which they can't. So they keep asking for high rates and leave it vacant.
Generally, there aren't any meaningful number of completely vacant homes in desirable areas in major cities. The caveats are there for cities like Miami where there are a significant number of second homes, cities like Detroit and Baltimore that have failed in some sense and experienced major population loss at some point, and rural areas that also have been experiencing population loss for some time.
I don't have a problem with vacation homes and most Americans don't seem to either, but if you do, okay.
The areas with declining population aren't really relevant to the discussion IMO, other than it's cheap housing that exists as a counterpoint to the people who claim no cheap housing exists.
> But I think taxes should be levied in line with incentives. If you place a wealth tax on property ownership, the only tangible thing that will happen is rents going up to offset. Since the tax applies to all landlords, it will be the closest thing to rent inflation.
I agree.
> What you really want to avoid is homes built but sitting empty. Whether that's a builder who can't sell at asking price, or a landlord not getting the rent they want doesn't matter.
Sure, but that's not a problem today. Builders aren't sitting on homes for extended periods of time, and landlords aren't leaving units empty for extended periods of time either. They are already disincentivized from doing so by existing carrying costs, so they don't.
> If the city sold a lot to you, they did so for improving home supply, not the developer's profits.
They presumably did it to generate revenue for the city, though there isn't much buildable city-owned land in most municipalities.
> For commercial, my opinion was based on Louis Rossman's YouTube channel about New York. The hypothesis there is that loans are based on property value, which are tied to requested rent. Asking for a lower rent might mean they have to put up more collateral, which they can't. So they keep asking for high rates and leave it vacant.
The commercial market is completely different than residential. Loan durations are shorter, terms are different, and there are many other factors that differ.
That analysis can't be applied to the residential market.
When social security "fails" (which I would define as not paying out 100% of its defined benefits), the payment structure will be changed and that's the end of it.
If paying for basic living expenses and higher education for your kids has "broken you", then you either didn't have the good job you thought you did or you aren't making very sound financial decisions (or both). Given that you own a paid off house, I suspect the actual issue is a complete lack of perspective on your part as to how well you have it.
In short, the economy is not failing, you're just a doomer.
All data would indicate otherwise, and why shouldn't short term rental or vacation properties exist?
reply