Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   The foreclosure crisis is fueling the wealth gap   (motherjones.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, White people, Rate of return, Black people, Race, White American, African American, white terrorist mob, new research points  
•       •       •

987 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Dec 2021 at 8:17 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



32 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-07 4:54:59 AM  
Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.
 
2021-12-07 6:55:52 AM  

koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.



Good plan.
I got my eye on you.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 8:13:26 AM  
Systemic racism is a thing, despite the denial of racists who refuse to admit it.
 
2021-12-07 8:29:36 AM  
When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.
 
2021-12-07 8:45:47 AM  

Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.


Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin
 
2021-12-07 8:49:57 AM  

Gubbo: Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.

Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin


An economist. Like I turn to a vaccine researcher about them, or an infectious disease expert about corona. Otherwise it's just plague rattery by another name, and they're no longer human.
 
2021-12-07 8:51:43 AM  

farkalt: Gubbo: Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.

Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin

An economist. Like I turn to a vaccine researcher about them, or an infectious disease expert about corona. Otherwise it's just plague rattery by another name, and they're no longer human.


I don't personally know any economists. And the ones in business journals and WSJ etc. are very concerned with the well being of the billionaire class.
 
2021-12-07 9:04:17 AM  

Gubbo: Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.

Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin


Reuters and Bloomberg generally.  Very middle of the road on these things.  Financial Times if you can get a subscription or around the paywall.
 
2021-12-07 9:07:52 AM  

farkalt: Gubbo: Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.

Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin

An economist. Like I turn to a vaccine researcher about them, or an infectious disease expert about corona. Otherwise it's just plague rattery by another name, and they're no longer human.


Chicago school? Austrian? Keynesian?

\ It ain't a science, it's a cult.
 
2021-12-07 9:25:47 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Systemic racism is a thing, despite the denial of racists who refuse to admit it.


Like white liberals in safe white neighborhoods voting 60-40 to defund the police. As they did in Minneapolis. Meanwhile in minority neighborhoods the vote was closer to 50%.
 
2021-12-07 9:39:03 AM  

star_miner: AdmirableSnackbar: Systemic racism is a thing, despite the denial of racists who refuse to admit it.

Like white liberals in safe white neighborhoods voting 60-40 to defund the police. As they did in Minneapolis. Meanwhile in minority neighborhoods the vote was closer to 50%.


There are actual votes? You mean we get a say? That's news to me.
 
2021-12-07 10:32:50 AM  

koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.


Higher taxes on anything that isn't an owner-occupied primary residence is a good thing.  Too many homes, especially starter homes, are owned by investors that rent them out.  People have to start somewhere in the home ownership game and investors raise the bar for entry.

Empty homes are a problem, but investors are so much worse.
 
2021-12-07 10:51:41 AM  
Moral of the story: If you are buying a house, move out of the hood, even if you are black or hispanic.
 
2021-12-07 10:54:05 AM  

Dinjiin: koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.

Higher taxes on anything that isn't an owner-occupied primary residence is a good thing.  Too many homes, especially starter homes, are owned by investors that rent them out.  People have to start somewhere in the home ownership game and investors raise the bar for entry.

Empty homes are a problem, but investors are so much worse.


Any increase in property taxes would just be passed along to the tenant.  And not everybody wants to or is able to purchase a home, especially poor people.  This also would result in housing removed from rental stock and transferred to being sold.

Good job.  You just made life more miserable for the poorest people, those who can't afford to purchase a house.
 
2021-12-07 11:39:20 AM  

koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.


Property taxes is a state and local government phenomena in the USA.  Are you proposing a federal property tax?  That won't happen.  Even in my lib state of MA property taxes are complex.  For example, the total tax for towns and cities can't increase more than 3.5% per year without a voter approved override (Proposition 3 and 1/2).  Even more stupid is that the increase isn't distributed evenly, it's dependent on velocity of sales of similar properties, so I usually see 8% increase but the huge mansions see only 1% increases per year since they rarely sell.  In CA property taxes can't be raised after the property is sold unless it is sold again (Proposition 13).
Then there are the local interests.  Wealthy cities and towns have a higher property tax base and enjoy better schools than poor communities.  Wealthy areas will not approve the loss of a huge chunk of their taxes to fund schools and government somewhere else in the state.
Some states like Maine have higher property taxes in vacation and rental property plus a sales tax on those properties.  This is reasonable and helps to fund their rural school systems near ski resorts and lakes.
Many red states are staunchly opposed to taxes on wealth so won't follow Maine's example.  And they will deeply resent federal action to do so, even if it greatly improves the lives of 99% of state residents.
 
2021-12-07 12:20:31 PM  

Geotpf: Dinjiin: koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.

Higher taxes on anything that isn't an owner-occupied primary residence is a good thing.  Too many homes, especially starter homes, are owned by investors that rent them out.  People have to start somewhere in the home ownership game and investors raise the bar for entry.

Empty homes are a problem, but investors are so much worse.

Any increase in property taxes would just be passed along to the tenant.  And not everybody wants to or is able to purchase a home, especially poor people.  This also would result in housing removed from rental stock and transferred to being sold.

Good job.  You just made life more miserable for the poorest people, those who can't afford to purchase a house.


Increasing the cost of rent is sorta the point if you want to make investment properties less attractive.  Those homes eventually get sold to people who want them as primary residences, who can now better afford them.

Limiting impact for the poorest folks can be attained via using housing assistance programs.  A big problem today is that housing prices are shutting out working class people who aren't considered poor, so they don't quality for assistance programs.
 
2021-12-07 12:27:24 PM  
Wait, wait.. so you're saying taking away people's homes makes them poorer?  Holy crap, who would've thought??

/obvious tag must be in court fighting a foreclosure
 
2021-12-07 12:42:27 PM  

Dinjiin: Increasing the cost of rent is sorta the point if you want to make investment properties less attractive.  Those homes eventually get sold to people who want them as primary residences, who can now better afford them.

Limiting impact for the poorest folks can be attained via using housing assistance programs.  A big problem today is that housing prices are shutting out working class people who aren't considered poor, so they don't quality for assistance programs.


Do your want to both punitively tax it and subsidize it?

Brilliant plan!  This will surely fix everything!
 
2021-12-07 12:53:41 PM  

koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.


I think more than a few states have it setup so that property taxes can't be applied in an unequal manner. This isn't a terrible thing, because before they used to tax the poor much higher.

The real problem here isn't just foreclosures, it's that run to more and more exclusive (highly educated, often white only in effect) housing. Also the segregation of housing overall. The old factory bosses may have been jerks, but they kept everyone in mixed housing by income. So you'd see the house for the new single employee next to the married family with kids, who was next to the newly married family without kids, who was near the shift manager, et al. The only people truly separated were the big bosses.

Today we segregate by income with drastic effects. People "aren't real" if you don't live near them at all, and it leads to over / under policing and worse. The way we structure real estate makes it easy to ignore problems.
 
2021-12-07 1:01:48 PM  

BMFPitt: Dinjiin: Increasing the cost of rent is sorta the point if you want to make investment properties less attractive.  Those homes eventually get sold to people who want them as primary residences, who can now better afford them.

Limiting impact for the poorest folks can be attained via using housing assistance programs.  A big problem today is that housing prices are shutting out working class people who aren't considered poor, so they don't quality for assistance programs.

Do your want to both punitively tax it and subsidize it?

Brilliant plan!  This will surely fix everything!


You have a better idea?
 
2021-12-07 1:08:47 PM  

Dinjiin: BMFPitt: Dinjiin: Increasing the cost of rent is sorta the point if you want to make investment properties less attractive.  Those homes eventually get sold to people who want them as primary residences, who can now better afford them.

Limiting impact for the poorest folks can be attained via using housing assistance programs.  A big problem today is that housing prices are shutting out working class people who aren't considered poor, so they don't quality for assistance programs.

Do your want to both punitively tax it and subsidize it?

Brilliant plan!  This will surely fix everything!

You have a better idea?


Not...doing...that.
 
2021-12-07 1:09:37 PM  

Dinjiin: You have a better idea?


Yes.

But first, I'd need to know what you believe the problem is, so I know whether it's not a real problem or it's a real problem that you don't understand that you'd be making worse.
 
2021-12-07 1:25:16 PM  

Geotpf: Dinjiin: BMFPitt: Dinjiin: Increasing the cost of rent is sorta the point if you want to make investment properties less attractive.  Those homes eventually get sold to people who want them as primary residences, who can now better afford them.

Limiting impact for the poorest folks can be attained via using housing assistance programs.  A big problem today is that housing prices are shutting out working class people who aren't considered poor, so they don't quality for assistance programs.

Do your want to both punitively tax it and subsidize it?

Brilliant plan!  This will surely fix everything!

You have a better idea?

Not...doing...that.


c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 1:26:41 PM  

BMFPitt: Dinjiin: You have a better idea?

Yes.

But first, I'd need to know what you believe the problem is, so I know whether it's not a real problem or it's a real problem that you don't understand that you'd be making worse.


I stated the problem two hours ago, but thanks for not reading the thread first.
 
2021-12-07 1:28:37 PM  

Dinjiin: Geotpf: Dinjiin: BMFPitt: Dinjiin: Increasing the cost of rent is sorta the point if you want to make investment properties less attractive.  Those homes eventually get sold to people who want them as primary residences, who can now better afford them.

Limiting impact for the poorest folks can be attained via using housing assistance programs.  A big problem today is that housing prices are shutting out working class people who aren't considered poor, so they don't quality for assistance programs.

Do your want to both punitively tax it and subsidize it?

Brilliant plan!  This will surely fix everything!

You have a better idea?

Not...doing...that.

[c.tenor.com image 498x373] [View Full Size image _x_]


Punitively taxing and subsidizing the same thing at the same time is much worse than doing nothing, and quite stupid to boot.
 
2021-12-07 1:35:11 PM  

Dinjiin: I stated the problem two hours ago, but thanks for not reading the thread first.


OK, so you believe that the existence of rental housing is a bad thing that must be stopped?

That goes into the bucket of, "not a real problem."
 
2021-12-07 1:41:21 PM  

BMFPitt: OK, so you believe that the existence of rental housing is a bad thing that must be stopped?


In moderation it could be good. In our current conditions and saturation of rental houses driving up housing costs, it's bad.
 
2021-12-07 2:48:42 PM  

koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.


Yep. Taxing empty space works really well. But landlords hate it, so it almost never happens. Because states and cities don't give a sh*t about their tenants, only their landlords (as they're the ones who actually have money and own property).
 
2021-12-07 2:53:32 PM  

Gubbo: farkalt: Gubbo: Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.

Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin

An economist. Like I turn to a vaccine researcher about them, or an infectious disease expert about corona. Otherwise it's just plague rattery by another name, and they're no longer human.

I don't personally know any economists. And the ones in business journals and WSJ etc. are very concerned with the well being of the billionaire class.


You sound lumpen.
 
2021-12-07 2:54:22 PM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: farkalt: Gubbo: Snort: When I want in depth business an economic analysis I turn to Mother Jones.

Where do you turn? All of the "business" journals will happily tell you why it's a terrible idea to even slightly inconvenience the rich. But where do you go for the other side of that coin

An economist. Like I turn to a vaccine researcher about them, or an infectious disease expert about corona. Otherwise it's just plague rattery by another name, and they're no longer human.

Chicago school? Austrian? Keynesian?

\ It ain't a science, it's a cult.


Osteopath? Naturopath? Chiropractor? Western? Eastern? Evidence based? Case study biased?
 
2021-12-07 2:55:45 PM  

Geotpf: Dinjiin: koder: Easy fix I peddle is exponentially raise property taxes on all empty, non-homestead dwellings, while lowering them on same-owner homesteads whenever property values increase rapidly (for a period of, say, 10 years).  It's gentrification poison, rent-hike poison, a strong disincentive to foreclose except when actually necessary, and a protection for retirees/the poor when a plague of developers swarm a neighborhood.

Higher taxes on anything that isn't an owner-occupied primary residence is a good thing.  Too many homes, especially starter homes, are owned by investors that rent them out.  People have to start somewhere in the home ownership game and investors raise the bar for entry.

Empty homes are a problem, but investors are so much worse.

Any increase in property taxes would just be passed along to the tenant.  And not everybody wants to or is able to purchase a home, especially poor people.  This also would result in housing removed from rental stock and transferred to being sold.

Good job.  You just made life more miserable for the poorest people, those who can't afford to purchase a house.


We need to outlaw renting. Assign everyone a vacant property at 18 by sortition. If you want to move, sell your property and purchase another. Problem solved.
 
2021-12-07 5:17:44 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: BMFPitt: OK, so you believe that the existence of rental housing is a bad thing that must be stopped?

In moderation it could be good. In our current conditions and saturation of rental houses driving up housing costs, it's bad.


Home ownership is at 65%.  It hasn't changed almost at all since just after WWII.
Your statement makes it seem like fewer people own homes.  Or is this really really recent like in the past month?
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.