• CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only potential buyers would be people who either currently rent or are ready to sell their old house as soon as they buy yours.

    What if someone wants to fix it up first? Nope, they can’t do it. It will cut out the flippers but we’ve also just cut out all the renovators and restorers.

    Not at all. They can buy and renovate all they want. They just have to sell it afterwards rather than rent it out.

      • cjsolx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would anyone renovate a property if it’s just gonna sit on the market out of reach of potential customers? I would hope that investors would be smarter than that. Like we’re saying, homes should be for living, not for investing. If there’s no pressing need to renovate, then great. Don’t. Whoever wants to buy it as is now can. And if they want to they can renovate what they want at their own pace.

      • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair point. So we cap profit at 10% above purchase price, and hit the renovators with 90% taxes if the home hasn’t sold in, say, six months.

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We could. Why would anyone want to make those investments once we’ve cut off all their profit potential?

          Investors chase profits. We can cut off their profits but when we do that 2 things happen; some of them just leave the industry and some of them break the law to try to get around the regulations. Almost nobody just eats the loss and continues investing.

          • Roboticide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We didn’t cut off all their profit potential. It’s just limited.

            I don’t really see the problem with this hypothetical. Small time flippers are unaffected. 10% or whatever profit is still profit. If it disincentivizes big commercial flippers or investors because they can no longer make “enough” profit, good, that’s the point.

            • nednobbins@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The problem we see when we try to implement price controls is that they inevitably lead to shortages. The oil caps in the 70s are a famous example but the NYC rent controls were just as bad. The standard practice if you wanted an apartment was to look in the newspaper for open house listings that day. You would show up before the open house starts with at least 1 months rent plus first and last months rent as security deposit, in cash. If you liked the place you signed within the first half hour. If you waited someone else took the apartment.

              Part of the challenge is that it’s not as simple as a 10% profit cap. What if someone owns a house for 2 years? Do we cap it at 20% profit? Do we index the allowable profit to inflation and then add a “reasonable” offset? Do we want to allow different profit caps for different renovations? (maybe we don’t want to treat swimming pools and solar panels the same way?) How long do you need to live in a house to consider it owner occupied?

              As those regulations get more and more complicated you end up with a ton of loopholes. The more you do that the more profitable regulatory arbitrage becomes as a business model.

              In general, tight margins favor large companies over small firms. They can operate at such a large scale where they can thrive off of profit margins that would starve small businesses. That’s the general issue with mega-retailers. They operate on single digit margins. Mom and pop can’t streamline their operations enough to survive on those margins.

              Our housing stock needs both growth and maintenance. That comes from investment. If we push the private sector out of those investments without replacing them we’ll just end up with a crumbling housing infrastructure. If we cut large businesses out of it government would likely need to take up the slack. And to be clear that government intervention would need to be massive. The real estate market is huge and if we cut out the private sector we will definitely need to raise taxes, by a large amount, to cover it. That’s not off the table but we should walk into a decision like that with eyes wide open.

    • gowan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But if they already own a home they can’t do this because they will own two

      • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one ha said that they can’t own more than one. They just can’t rent one while living in the other. The vacant one stays vacant.