Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/cryptoleft
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben
@benersing
If bottoms-up at the city council / neighborhood level, I agree. If top down from state or federal level, its still unclear to me how it'd be different from the examples you provided. Slight aside, I’m familiar with the role of private equity owners in SFR markets pushing up prices via increase demand and willingness to pay, but not as familiar with price fixing via intentional vacancy. Can you elaborate? Is there data you can share?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
I see a slippery-slope fallacy here presuming that all “top down” tax policy creates the same outcome— in libertarian lore, the centralization demon robbing local actors of freedom. If we accept that slippery slope, the Federal Reserve is the most communist abomination imaginable, oppressing all of us with an unavoidable tax to private oligarchs any time government governs. Unless we eliminate the Federal Reserve and dozens of other top-down market-manipulating policy favoring oligarchs, a federal poison-pill tax on vacant housing would be the fairest: Just like our tithe to private bankers cannot be avoided, our tithe to sane reconciliation of housing supply with local capital supply should not be avoidable either. Commercial real estate is just as anti-market now, with banks price-fixing markets using clauses that poison-pill bill mortgage holders for lost value if they sell or rent beneath a certain price. Here’s some data: housing cost increases by state over 40 years. Compare to median wages
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
