The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: FaC on October 10, 2011, 12:25:33 PM
-
Now that we have established that we can tax non-activity via HCR lets expand the concept:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2088032
PETRUS (423 posts) Sun Oct-09-11 10:22 PM
Original message
Taxing Nothing: Make Owners of Vacant Property Pay
Economist Dean Baker has an idea that could slow down foreclosures and lower rents.
From the original article: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/taxing-nothing-make-owners-of-vacant-property-pay
However, there is one tax that state and local governments can raise without fear of losing businesses or people. They can tax vacant properties.
This is an especially desirable tax in the current economic situation since the real estate bubble created a glut of both residential and non-residential property in much of the country. Having housing units or commercial properties sit idle does no one any good. People could be living in the housing units and the commercial properties could offer new jobs in stores and offices.
The problem is that property owners often have difficulty coming to grips with the new market environment. They saw the run-up in prices of the bubble years and they expect that these prices will soon return. Rather than accept a lower price to sell or rent their vacant properties, they are waiting for prices to return to their bubble peak.
As a result, these pie-in-the-sky property owners are holding property that returns them no income. And, the whole economy suffers as a result of not deriving any value from these idle structures.
A vacant property tax would help these property owners to see reality. By providing an additional incentive to actually use vacant property this tax can both raise a substantial sum of money and bring down the cost of renting housing and commercial property.
PETRUS (423 posts) Sun Oct-09-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Oh, c'mon
I know that and so does he - he's a freakin' PhD in economics. He's suggesting a (small) additional tax to address an imbalance - most vacant properties are owned by banks, landlords, and speculators. Rents are (still) too high. People are homeless, and entrepreneurs need space.
I am from the governement and I think that you should pay an additional tax if you choose not to utilize your property in the manner I think is correct
-
Well, obviously if you have a vacant property, then you are rich and deserve to pay more taxes, right? :mental:
-
Are not these called Property Taxes?
Only in a Liberal's world would a New Tax = Tax Nothing.
-
The way I read it this is an additional tax on top of current property taxes if the building is empty/not rented/not used. The theory is that the mean landlord needs to be re-euducated into asking a lower rent and the way to convince them to lower the rent is to lay on an additional tax until the landlord sees the light. :mental:
Just like you can be punished (i.e. taxed) for not buying insurance you can be punished for having the gall to ask for market rent and then not accepting below market offers...
-
How about if you have some vacant property and you want to build but the government won't give you permit?
Then you get double tapped for not being able to build because they won't let you build. Or even better, make it illegal to build and then tax them for not building.
It's a Liberal wet dream
-
How about if you have some vacant property and you want to build but the government won't give you permit?
Then you get double tapped for not being able to build because they won't let you build. Or even better, make it illegal to build and then tax them for not building.
It's a Liberal wet dream
Or the people that own property and the government won't let them do anything with it because of some bug living there.
-
Do like a fellow here in my town did several years ago.
He owned a parcel of land with an old house on it. He tried to sell it, but the "Hysterical" (Historical) Society had a cow and tried to have this house declared a historical landmark.
Before they could file the paperwork, he bulldozed it to rubble! :lmao:
-
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~ RR
Now, if it stops moving, tax it more.
-
The way I read it this is an additional tax on top of current property taxes if the building is empty/not rented/not used. The theory is that the mean landlord needs to be re-euducated into asking a lower rent and the way to convince them to lower the rent is to lay on an additional tax until the landlord sees the light. :mental:
Just like you can be punished (i.e. taxed) for not buying insurance you can be punished for having the gall to ask for market rent and then not accepting below market offers...
I believe you're correct, there is an additional item in there about taxing foreclosured houses as well, which probably is intended to stop banks from foreclosing on bad mortgages, but I think it would more likely have the unintended consequence of trashing real estate values yet again because under this scheme banks would need to move the property quickly once they repossessed, and the accounting works a whole lot better to foreclose, liquidate and take the loss and be out of it, rather than carry a deadbeat-in-possession on the books indefinitely.
It would probably cause a rash of mysterious fires as well. :whistling: