|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Here's how to fix gentrification. Local jurisdictions are already allowed to create tax districts with special property tax rules. When an area is ripe for gentrification, create a tax zone which applies to any property owner who lives in the house or has family living in the house as a sole residence. Either freeze the property tax or allow it to rise a small amount every year. When the house is sold, the new owner is subject to the full property tax assessment. This is what destroyed the state of California's budgets for 40 years. Also, it effectively served as a handout to middle/upper middle class white people (and was supported by them) and did basically nothing for the poor. Basically it's a terrible idea and causes many many more problems than it fixes
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
I feel like lots of the rationale behind rent control is essentially that people shouldn't be forced to leave whatever community they're in. I guess that makes some sense, but it's not like being priced out of San Fransisco or Manhattan means you're off to the favelas. As long as there is housing of an acceptable standard, I don't really see the need for any kind of rent control. Public housing, or publicly subsidized rent (at market rates) makes sense IMO, but not price controls.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Prop 13 and a Gentrified Tax District have about as much in common as stabbing and surgery. When my argument is "We should freeze taxes for the poor in some circumstances" you can't rebut that with "But California froze taxes for the rich all over the state and it hosed everything up!" They didn't freeze taxes for the rich, they froze taxes for middle class white Republican homeowners (who then became rich because they didn't have to pay any property tax). These things are fundamentally related. The people who will benefit from property tax freezes are not the poor, it's people who own property
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Hence why I said in my post (please read my post) that we subsidize homeowners who live in the home as a primary residence, or have family who live in the home (uncle's house might be in grandma's name). That doesn't help the poor. Poor people don't own houses. Your plan helps the homeowning middle class, not the poor. Popular Thug Drink posted:Conversely, cities create special tax districts all the time and freezing your revenue at a current level for some people as a subsidy doesn't cost you any extra, you're only foregoing future income. A healthy number of cities do this exact thing to fund infrastructure. So..... You're going to fund infrastructure projects .... by reducing revenue? Are you Ronald Reagan IRL?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:There are many cities where poor people own houses. Believe it or not. By definition those people aren't as poor as the poorest, so what is the problem exactly with them paying property tax? Revenue has to come from somewhere, and if most property value is not owned by the ultrarich you can't just tax the ultrarich. Like I said, if they're forced out by gentrification they're not necessarily being forced into lovely housing. Basically, nobody has actually bothered to explain why gentrification is a bad thing to begin with, aside from the useless leftist 'everything is bad because everyone hing is part of the capitalist system'. Certainly nobody has explained how preventing it will have any positive effects. Most of the complaints about it seem to be coming as much from middle class homeowners being priced out as they are from actual poor people. I don't really give a poo poo about white middle class people getting priced out of Brooklyn, sorry icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue being that jobs/infrastructure/opportunity in the city center itself and as the poor are pushed to the margins, their access to them is decreased especially since most American cities have miserable public transportation especially away from the central city. So build public transportation then? Once again you didn't explain why gentrification is bad, but a lack of public transportation. And yes, this line of thinking is the quintessentially leftist 'well, I've determined that the actual solution to this problem is too hard to achieve, so instead I'll advocate a half-solution at best that may or may not actually make things worse, and get pissy when people say it's a bad idea'
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Public transportation is expensive as hell and doesn't help people who cross into the wrong jurisdictions. If I lose my home in Urban County and find a rental out in Flykicker Country twenty miles away, it doesn't help me if the residents of Flykicker Country don't participate in the regional mass transit program. So fix jurisdictional issues regarding public transit then. See here: icantfindaname posted:And yes, this line of thinking is the quintessentially leftist 'well, I've determined that the actual solution to this problem is too hard to achieve, so instead I'll advocate a half-solution at best that may or may not actually make things worse, and get pissy when people say it's a bad idea' What's the point in even having a discussion about what the best policy is if people shut down any suggestion that may take some effort?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Congratulations! The Cato Institute totally agrees with you. So you have examples of rent control that produced successful outcomes? Or are you just saying that because the Cato Institute said something, that something must be wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The politicians across the U.S. are fully aware that they could fund universal public healthcare, education, housing and transportation via proper progressive taxation on both income and capital gains. Yeah but there's a difference between ideas like just giving third world countries trillions of dollars, or rent control, and ideas like universal public healthcare, education, and housing, being that the first group of ideas are bad and the second are good. Like I said earlier, I don't get why leftists insist that there's actually no difference, because none of them will get implemented so it doesn't matter anyways. That kind of vocal, petulant defeatism gets incredibly obnoxious at a certain point. If you really don't care then shut up and go home, you don't have to make sure everyone knows you feel that way and shut down all discussion otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
I don't really see what's wrong with a simple public subsidy of rent, IE if you can't pay the market rate the government will make up the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Apart from creating a 100% marginal tax rate? What? How would a subsidy create a 100% tax rate?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
on the left posted:People living in the wealthiest cities for the longest time should rightfully be given preferential treatment and abnormally cheap rent instead of outsiders from economically depressed areas, this is a good and equitable use of government power that leftists can get behind. Why? I guess this group of poor people is arbitrarily more important than this other group? Is this a joke post and I'm just not getting it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:There is a larger argument to be made though people have lived anywhere for a long time, but particularly in cities, tend to care about the general wellbeing of their neighborhoods more and it's a good thing to support to help improve cities as a whole. Okay, but this applies equally well to middle and upper class people as the poor. To me this seems like just as much an argument to fill cities with middle class white people and keep them there for a while SedanChair posted:Could it be that suburban fuckholes and flyover country don't have high rents? AHA, we have the real answer. Rent control is necessary because we can't condemn people to living in Flyover Country, AKA outside the NYC or SF city limits icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
side_burned posted:So a situation where access to public transportation and culture are the privileges of the wealthy is better than dealing with problems caused by rent control? So once again we have "the real solution is to build out public transportation, but I'm going to argue for this other, shittier solution, because reasons"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Well, rent controlled housing also tends to turn into ghettos, so that's not necessarily an argument. Ghettoization has more to do with a lack of jobs available and poor layout. Scandanavian public housing is pretty much the gold standard. Public housing does seem to be the best solution to ensuring quality housing for the poor
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Economics is actually p bad and economists basically are 24/7 paid shills for capitalism The word 'capitalism' is used by leftists to describe literally all economic systems except for utopian fantasies by dead dudes from the 1800s and the USSR, everything from Ayn Rand libertopia to state directed development to welfare social democracy to oil states like Saudi Arabia to gradualist democratic socialists. So, in a sense, yes, economists who aren't Marxists are all shills for capitalism Peven Stan posted:That's the loving problem. Your taking what is essentially a political policy and doing the magic handwave of "ceteris paris this is bad markets rule governments drool" when in real life rents are a complex issue that can't be boiled down to a single supply and demand curve. And you're saying "The IMF did bad things 40 years ago so therefore you aren't allowed to criticize rent control" Typo posted:Has there ever being a single case when rent control ever worked? He's just going to redefine what "worked" means and say "well CAPITALISM is worse, therefore you can't say that"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So your proposal is to use mass eminent domain to seize properties, apparently arbitrarily, in city centres. I'm sure this would work out well...... That's.....that's why eminent domain exists? The city would acquire land to build housing the same way it acquires any sort of land, by buying it, or if necessary eminent domain. There's not some new problem here to be solved
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
It's a good idea just because it's easier and more efficient for the government just to own and run rent-subsidized housing for the poor than it is to give the subsidy money to private landlords or try to fix prices
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 01:36
|
|