> don’t see how those are trivially worked around in a country with a half decent government
Look at how people abuse rent controlled apartments. (All the way up to the current mayor.)
> People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property
This is literally what happens in places with such taxes. I wouldn’t bat an eye buying a house in my partner or a parent’s name if it saved 3x property taxes.
> I wouldn’t bat an eye buying a house in my partner or a parent’s name if it saved 3x property taxes.
That sounds like the policy had the desired effect. I.e home ownership is spread out across many people.
Those people cannot then own properties without being subject to those extra taxes. They'd be giving something up to help you, so would presumably benefiting somehow from your scheme.
I’m sick of rent control being vilified. If you’re not going to build more then you definitely need it. I’ve had my rent go up as much as 20%, forcing me to move on more than one occasion. If Prop 13 keeps the grandma in their home, then why can’t I have rent control that lets me stay put and provide stability?
Landlords will do the absolute minimum for repairs anyway, rent control or not.
Rent controls is universally considered a stupid idea, the only reason why it continues to exist for the benfits of the political class that leverage votes out of it.
Handing out subsidy checks for the same amount accomplishes the same thing without the deadweight loss of people getting locked in aparments that economically prohibitve to keep habitable , or the units stay vacant for the same reason (see NYC).
Even government run HUD aparments end up with the same problem, given the exact same economics.
> Rent controls is universally considered a stupid idea, the only reason why it continues to exist for the benfits of the political class that leverage votes out of it. Handing out subsidy checks for the same amount accomplishes the same thing
Fine, if subsidy checks then it’s subsidy checks. But subsidies or handouts will never work in the current political climate because it is “handouts for the poor”. So I don’t necessarily blame them for going this route.
All I am saying is that uncapped rent increases has put me at a major disadvantage, because every time I hope to save and buy for a house my rent jumps substantially and I find myself back to square one. I’m making progress toward that down payment sum, but the cost of moving + paying higher rent has made this a struggle.
Homeowners enjoy(ed) a lot of government perks - the GI bill spurred construction, property taxes are capped, interest can be a tax deduction. Renters get absolutely nothing, and 40% (vs 60% homeowners) is a non-trivial amount. Why can’t I have any protections or programs that help me save a bit more so I can actually be a homeowner?
Even the downvotes to my previous post seem to indicate that nobody really cares about renters - and I’m caught in this weird middle where I make too much to not qualify for subsidized housing and I make too little to save at a cadence where I can catch up with home appreciation and bidding wars. Now, I’ve to deal with bidding wars a renter too - it’s not the norm yet but I have certainly run into it. What the hell am I supposed to do?!?
> Saying that tracking who is the legal owner and beneficiary of a property is tough.
That doesn’t pass the sniff test - the legal owner has to pay property taxes so why can’t they track it that way? If it’s a trust then it’s the beneficiaries that are the owners.
In the absence of rent control i can see landlords just forwarding the cost of taxes, but that’s where I’m a huge proponent of it. Discourage investing in homes unless you really have the capital
> the legal owner has to pay property taxes so why can’t they track it that way
...the legal owner would pay the property tax. The beneficial owner/controller would reimburse them.
> In the absence of rent control i can see landlords just forwarding the cost of taxes, but that’s where I’m a huge proponent of it. Discourage investing in homes unless you really have the capital
This reminds me of the effect of squatters' rights on rents. It discourages property owners becoming landlords.
You're increasing the cost of owning rental property while lowering its yield. What do you think will happen? Why not offer a tax deduction for landlords voluntarily submitting their properties to rent control, similar to conservation easements?
> It discourages property owners becoming landlords.
But that’s a good thing, no? I’d much rather they sell, instead of hoarding property.
And as for the tax deductions, why should homeowners get even more help from the government? Property tax is capped, homes appreciate like crazy, and there are already tax deduction in place. From where I’m standing, homeowners are sitting pretty with their mortgage being at an all time low. It is awful being a renter and having no idea if my landlord intends to jack up rent and having me wonder if it’s worth it to move.
That being said, I do understand that there’s a fine balance - like if there are no landlords, someone who isn’t ready to find a house won’t have a place to live. Maybe we should put controls in place on who can buy a house - foreigners and corporations shouldn’t, for example. That should counter people doing all-cash offers for above asking.
People are not just going to give their relatives title to their property. LLC’s can be required to name the beneficial owner.
The rent-to-own lease farce can also be trivially uncovered by requiring rents to be public, like real estate sales are in most jurisdictions.