Yes, it’s bad news. That’s the point of the article, to draw attention to a bad societal trend, it’s social commentary. Identifying a problem is the first step to solving it.
Sure, it’s not unethical for a kid to accept (necessary) help to survive, though it is to vote for or otherwise institute a society where that is necessary. The point the article is attempting to make is social commentary to draw attention to the fact that increasingly the lottery of inheritance is the only means of owning a home.
The first step to resolving the issue is identifying it. Nobody likes the implication that their success is not earned, by making that uncomfortable point the author is attempting to cause people to support change to correct this trend.
…increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone’s rent…
Can you explain this to me? Surely a landlord charges the highest rent that the market can provide. Why would taxing the landlord increase the Tennant’s ability or willingness to pay a higher rent?
Credit card companies spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to work out how high they can optimize these merchant fee rates. A credit card charge is painstakingly optimized to maximize profits. Often credit card companies pay a portion of these fees because the competitive market will not shoulder the burden - customers will move to a cheaper credit card, which is why cards with high fees often try to entice customers with rewards programs).
Without the ability to influence demand, the seller can either eat the cost or remove themselves from the market, my question is how does increasing the tax move the needle on demand knowing that any rational acting landlord is already acting to maximize their return on investment? Are you suggesting that they’ll copy credit cards and increase rates but offer some bonus program to increase demand? I’m not convinced that would work.
A policy like this would apply to the entire market. All landlords have vacancies at least occasionally, due to renovations or bad luck.
Wouldn’t it only apply to the local market? A lot of people, particularly higher earning white collar workers have the ability to demand a work from home policy. Could they not move further away to cooler markets if their commute is eliminated or reduced to only a few days per week? Surely that would put downwards pressure on the inflated local market, moreso if a progressive tax system is implemented (eg tax rates increase % after value increases by a certain threshold).
It won’t affect a tenant’s ability to pay more, but a policy that increases ownership costs across the board means that there won’t be cheaper alternatives in the competition, so the tenant will need to either find a way to pay the increase or they’ll have to leave to a cheaper market. The highest rent the market can bear will go up if it’s not possible to compete any further on lower prices.
Unless I’m grossly misunderstanding how land tax works, it won’t evenly apply across the board (even a flat % tax would be a higher burden for more expensive properties). This would drive people towards constructing cheaper housing as the bottom falls out of the top end of the market, which in turn would make housing cheaper for owner occupiers in those cheaper markets. Isn’t that the desired outcome?
Welcome to the ‘nepo’ housing market: 40% of homebuyers under 30 get family money to cover their down payment ( archive.ph )
Definitely a trend I see around me (Europe, 30 years old)....
Landlords should have to pay income tax on their rental properties regardless of whether they're rented out or not. ( gothamist.com )
cross-posted from: lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162...