The rich buy stuff, do they not? Tax those things to force realization and thus tax of unrealized wealth. Buying a second, third, fourth home? Here's your increasingly high tax and interest rate penalty. Instead of throwing up our hands with "they don't have cash", force them to realize investments into cash and deincentivize being able to keep everything hidden being investments and purchasing things with unrealized wealth.
The rich don't buy much stuff relatively to their wealth.
When you're a billionaire all of life's basics are effectively free. And there are only so many houses, private jets, and super yachts you can buy.
In any case your first, second, third, and fourth home will be owned by a corporation based in the Cayman Islands and buried under an opaque list of shell companies, all of which you also own via cut-outs, one or two of which may be actual registered and regulated banks, which mortgage the properties back to you so you can play games with interest rate arbitrage.
And all of this will be handled by a small personal mini-corporation employing tens of tax experts, lawyers, creative accountants, and investment managers, so you probably aren't even interested in the details.
It's too easy for the ultra-rich to find loopholes in any rules. If there is a tax on homeownership, they will simply not own any home but will own some corporate entity that own the asset. See ? No secondary residence. Just an investment in a corporation that happens to home a bunch of houses.
I have a friend who buys apartment complexes and houses on the company for his employees to live in; that seems not to be reasonable. In fact, it became more reasonable with wfh; now his colleagues living farther away, who he wants in the office 3 months a year, can live for cheap for both sides and without any long term contracts. Definitely cheaper and more convenient than hotels in his area.
>I have a friend who buys apartment complexes and houses on the company for his employees to live in
When railroad and heavy industry did this exact thing in the 19th century we called them robber barons and broke up their obscenely powerful and corrupt monopolies via antitrust legislation.
Anything can be abused, but I don't know the history; I have heard of robber barons, but not in the context of housing and Google doesn't seem to give me more than just their own enormous mansions. It would depend on if it's abused or not, wouldn't it?
The TL;DR of why this is bad is that when employees are paying, or are indebted to, their employers, even in a roundabout way, it's really easy for that relationship to become very abusive.
The company towns also often payed in scrip, which was basically credit at the company store, and, gee, wouldn't you know it, the company owns all the land to the horizon, so there are no other stores in reasonable travel distance! And if you need a little credit because your pay's terrible after your rent (to the company) comes out, and the prices at the store are marked way up, why, they'll be happy to extend some....
That's the extreme version, but it's bad enough that even inching that direction is something worthy of concern. One ought be wary any time money's flowing from an employee to an employer.
The robber-baron version is basically the thing you see in capitalist-dystopia sci fi like The Outer Worlds, but it actually happened.
>The robber-baron version is basically the thing you see in capitalist-dystopia sci fi like The Outer Worlds, but it actually happened.
Also a significant portion of the country seems to be actively attempting to let it happen again. High school made them read The Great Gatsby and they all imagine themselves as Gatsby and the other obscenely wealthy people instead of the 99% of awful and perpetually dying lives most people experienced.
I am trying to imagine how such a proscription would work. Would there be a list of things corporations are disallowed ownership? Who would the seller be required to determine if the entity is appropriate? Or would the local property tax clerk just not allow registration by a non-human entity?
I am wondering about the details. Would you prohibit anything that could be used as a residence? Office buildings would be permitted? I live in an apartment unit in a 24 story tower. It is owned by a corporation and I lease it. Would only condos owned by humans be permitted?
Do you suppose laws and the legal system provide the social infrastructure to support the corporate ownership of housing as property? If so, that - outside of political will - can be modified, deleted even. Without legal support, it will collapse.
I currently lease my apartment unit in a 24 story tower from a corporation. My friend leases a single family home in a suburb from a corporation. Should both of these use cases be eliminated?
Does it matter that you lease it specifically from a corporation? I'm just going to guess that you are more interested in where any how you live than what the ownership model is of the place your living. For example given two properties in all ways equal except ownership models, you would take the corporate-owned one? I find that a bit far fetched.
Even then, because we typically lack experience with a variety of ownership models, it will be difficult to dis-entangle the familiarity bias from our conceptualizations.
No, I don’t want a corporation. I am trying to imagine how renting would work in dense cities with restrictions on ownership. It seems it would be a less liquid market.
Most of those are bad; at least if a landlord is only interested in money they’ll take your money. In the “decommodified” forms, you can’t live there unless the manager personally likes you.
With government public housing you can lose it if you break the law (hope you never smoke weed) or if the populace elects a racist government and you’re a minority.
Commodifying housing helped black people in the South because they could actually buy prefab houses from Sears.
The cost of hiring people to get around regulations so you don't have to waste your own time doing it is trivial to someone extremely wealthy. Those things really are not deterrents at all. They'd only work on the upper middle class, meaning we'd end up in the exact same situation we're in right now. If you can pay someone to make a problem go away then the very rich are going to do that almost 100% of the time.
> Just an investment in a corporation that happens to home a bunch of houses.
But what's the point? If they can't get money out then it doesn't matter. The only reason houses are worth holding as an asset is public bodies stopping the creation of more housing, driving the price up. You fix that with less state interference, not more.
That's the exact opposite of what happens in the real world.
In the world the state builds and owns a lot public housing and this depresses rents and property values.
Countries stop doing this when policy is captured by neoliberal dogma. The UK is a perfect example. Housing was relatively affordable before a disastrous "right to buy" policy in the 70s, with extra enforced restrictions on state house building, destroyed the national housing market.
Now most housing is unfeasibly expensive. And hundreds of thousands of properties stand empty because they're owned solely as investments.
This is excellent for private landlords, property speculators, and older home-owners. It's an utter disaster for everyone under the age of forty because rents are unaffordable and ownerships is unimaginable.
Right to Buy didn't destroy the housing market. The same people who lived in council housing bought it under Right to Buy.
The problem was not building more housing to cope with increased demand. That would've happened regardless of whether the Right to Buyers were renting off the council or had bought their property.
> In the world the state builds and owns a lot public housing and this depresses rents and property values.
Public housing, but not housing. The state controls what can be built where, which can drive up demand enough that property becomes a valuable enough asset to let it stand empty. Giving the state more power on top of that to correct that incompetent use of power seems worth questioning.
Would it not be possible to then tax them on their ownership on that corporate entity, which gets assessed based on its holdings (including, yes, property)?
Or prevent companies from holding real estate as an investment vehicle?
I'm not naive enough to argue that this is a definitively easy thing, but especially when it comes to housing, the poor and middle class are getting completely fucked right now; it's gotten to the point in the crisis where we absolutely need to do something urgently.
There's always the next trick. What if that corporation is also saddled with a bunch of debt, such that its net holdings is roughly zero? What if it bought those houses for very little money (from some other friendly corporation) so that, on paper, their value is very low? etc.
Taxing businesses which own residential property at the same rate as second homes stops that particular wheeze entirely. If you wish to exempt certain types of business you believe have valid reasons to own residential property at low/no property tax rates then that becomes an exemption they have to demonstrate eligibility for, not the default.
Second homes being misclassified as non-residential property might be trickier to deal with, but a lot of jurisdictions already have laws around what is and isn't residential...
The rich buy stuff, yes, but they spend a much lower percentage of their wealth (or income) on "buying stuff" than the middle-class or merely-well-off do.
I think we should add very steep taxes on second+ homes and "investment properties", but that's to address the housing problem, not to address the massive wealth disparity.
The real problem is their ability to buy things like "lawyers" and "newspaper coverage" and "senators", and it's much harder to effectively tax that sort of thing.
The tax/bankruptcy laws for homes, for example, are absolutely crazy. 2nd+ homes in the US can be written off but the first one cannot. Absolutely bizarre world policy that only makes sense if it were written by/for the wealthy.
Also corporate ownership of single-family residential property in the US should be forbidden.
