I keep thinking we need an overhaul where volunteering to be a public servant at a high enough level also means volunteering to surrender all your assets and be barred from owning anything significant for life. You get a stipend that you can spend on food, hobbies, travel, and entertainment, but that’s it. You get housing and transportation paid for (or maybe you can own your residence and car) but no businesses, no stocks, etc. I guess you get a pension or salary for life or something.
People have demonstrated that they generally cannot be trusted to balance governmental power with conflicts of interest. Sure some people can, but ordinary voters picking from candidates filtered for “actively seeks power” have a crappy track record. Here’s hoping politicians like Mamdani can teach the voters a re things and start to turn that around.
Landlording is almost uneconomical as it is in a lot of places. That’s why so many condos are completely vacant in expensive cities. People buy them and just hold them as a store of value, but don’t rent them out.
I dunno, common sense? Youll have two competing pressure for sure. On one hand, if holding vacant properties costs more, you’re going to charge more rent on occupied properties to offset. On the other hand, you can only charge so much more above market rate without discouraging potential renters. If those numbers don’t align for you, you sell your vacant property, increasing supply and reducing the market rates.
laws should change to make landlording uneconomical so they release those houses back into the market, lowering the prices.
no pity for those parasites
First, we need to ensure that the people who make the laws aren’t landlords.
the french already invented the perfect tool
Chairman Mao had a good crack at it n’all.
from what I understand, Mao’s purge of landlord was more akin to a purge of feudal lords.
not exactly the same, but close enough
I keep thinking we need an overhaul where volunteering to be a public servant at a high enough level also means volunteering to surrender all your assets and be barred from owning anything significant for life. You get a stipend that you can spend on food, hobbies, travel, and entertainment, but that’s it. You get housing and transportation paid for (or maybe you can own your residence and car) but no businesses, no stocks, etc. I guess you get a pension or salary for life or something.
People have demonstrated that they generally cannot be trusted to balance governmental power with conflicts of interest. Sure some people can, but ordinary voters picking from candidates filtered for “actively seeks power” have a crappy track record. Here’s hoping politicians like Mamdani can teach the voters a re things and start to turn that around.
Landlording is almost uneconomical as it is in a lot of places. That’s why so many condos are completely vacant in expensive cities. People buy them and just hold them as a store of value, but don’t rent them out.
Large real estate groups also do that to artificially keep supply low to inflate market rates. Those are not the only properties they own.
vacant property tax. Mamdani did it. it works
It hasn’t even started yet. Where’s the evidence that it achieves the goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing?
I dunno, common sense? Youll have two competing pressure for sure. On one hand, if holding vacant properties costs more, you’re going to charge more rent on occupied properties to offset. On the other hand, you can only charge so much more above market rate without discouraging potential renters. If those numbers don’t align for you, you sell your vacant property, increasing supply and reducing the market rates.