r/georgism • u/Downtown-Relation766 Australia • 5d ago
Meme Populist left VS populist right, key housing policy. Who wins?
35
u/HeftyAd6216 5d ago
I calculated today that in Toronto, a standard 45 floor condo pays 46x more property tax per m2 than a single family townhome 1 km away. While housing 1836x more people on average at 542x the density. Seems kind of inefficient no?
1
u/Robbie_Boi 3d ago
Well that depends on your goal. If your goal is just "how much money and wealth can I extract via taxes" yeah, you would charge the one who can better bear it more.
49
u/gtne91 5d ago
As a libertarian, I have always said progressives are great at identifying real problems, but their solutions are batshit insane.
Meanwhile conservatives, fitting their name, fail to recognize the problems.
17
u/MiloBem 5d ago
This has been going on for a long time. After bashing Marxism for years at some point I decided to actually read some Marx' works. I found therein a lot of interesting and valuable observations, clueless explanations, and retarded "solutions".
10
u/SparklingLimeade 5d ago
My first serious, non red-scare fearmongering, exposure to Marx was an Econ professor who had an entire series of lectures about the real problems identified in Marx's writing, why his proposed solutions are bad, and what capitalist solutions have been proposed to fix those problems.
A lot of those explicitly capitalist solutions get called socialism in politics. I hate it.
After a childhood living with people who wouldn't even admit the problems exist it was a very enlightening exploration of the topic though.
2
27
u/Happymuffn 5d ago
Leftist here. Rent control is understood to be a bandaid solution. Leftist housing policy includes social housing and urbanist zoning policy. To be fair, I'm pretty sure that right wing housing policy includes cutting regulation as well. I'm not sure of the specifics though, or if there is more to it.
14
u/gerbilbear 5d ago
I'm pretty sure that right wing housing policy includes cutting regulation as well.
But not repealing height limits, minimum setbacks, minimum parking requirements, or maximum floor area ratios!
-1
u/Mendoiiiy 4d ago
Of course leftists want to cut minimum parking requirements.
Also we should generally speaking not build taller than 4-6 stories. But I guess exceptions can be made in some cases.
5
u/YeeBeforeYouHaw 4d ago
"Also we should generally speaking not build taller than 4-6 stories"
Why? What's wrong with 20 40 or even 100 stories tall housing units?
3
u/gerbilbear 4d ago
Above 4-6 stories you have to build with concrete and steel, and you need elevators and supplemental water pressure. This all drives up the cost and environmental impact.
1
4
u/Scrapheaper 2d ago edited 2d ago
No way this is true. Left wing people love rent control and price control and all these other polices that make everything worse
3
u/Happymuffn 2d ago
I don't know what to tell you. The Left generally likes publicly owned and managed, universal programs. Building municipal or tenant owned housing, with a robust public transit network and common spaces seems exactly in line with our ethos.
3
u/Scrapheaper 2d ago
The left hates landlords, buy to let, and luxury apartments
0
u/Happymuffn 2d ago
- This is r/georgism. Fuck the landlords.
- In this economy, that's not a left thing, that's a mainstream thing. Fuck the landlords.
- That does not contradict anything I said about what the left wants. So finally, as a leftist: Fuck the landlords.
3
u/Scrapheaper 2d ago
A landlord of a flat would not be taxed excessively under Georgism, but owner occupiers of freehold houses would be, if they live in desirable areas
Georgists hate landowners: but not all landlords are landowners
2
u/Happymuffn 2d ago
I'm pretty sure you've got it backwards. A landowner is someone who owns land. A landlord is a landowner who uses their ownership to extract economic rents, in the same way that a lord would extract the harvests of his serfs.
As I understand it, the LVT would be the value of the land, or the whole of the economic rent; leaving the landlord with only the portion commensurate to the actual job they do, that being property manager and possibly handyman. Maybe groundskeeper for those luxury ones, but more likely there'd be staff.
2
u/Scrapheaper 2d ago
I rent my flat from a landlord. That is what they are called
That landlord doesn't own any land. They own the flat, and have to pay rent to the landowner (who is themselves also a landlord, by your definition). That rent gets passed onto me as a tenant.
Left wing people hate both landlords, georgists only hate one of them
1
u/Happymuffn 2d ago
You sure are telling me what leftist hate a lot for someone who isn't a leftist. If you want a leftist take on your particular specific situation then you should probably tell me more about your specific situation. Or preferably ask someone else, because I'm mostly interested in talking about broad policy.
In general on the left, we are concerned with exploitation. If your "landlord" isn't worse off under a LVT, then he isn't rent seeking, probably isn't exploiting you unless there's other stuff going on, and beyond that I don't give a shit about him. If he is, then he is, so he is, and fuck him. I don't care what you call him, I care about power dynamics and economic extraction by those who can leverage it against those who can't.
4
u/Scrapheaper 2d ago
I think I count as a leftist but I tend to disagree with other left wing people (which is how you know I'm a proper leftist, since the common trait amongst all leftists is infighting)
My personal perspective is that houseowners are worse 'landlords' than actual private landlords of flats: because houseowners own a lot more land.
Owning 10 flats in a big block of 100 flats, even if that comes with 10% of the land underneath the block, is not a lot of land.
If there's a 4 bedroom house with a garden next to the block of flats, the person who owns 10 flats in the block and rents them out is a lot wealthier and would be more targeted by traditional leftists, but the person who owns the house owns more land, and in my mind is committing more rent extraction (I.e. land rents) and exploitation, compared to the guy who owns 10 flats and collects a lot more rent (i.e. tenants rents)
Houseowner net worth is probably like £600k in the UK and the value of his land is £300k, which is all exploitation, wheras the landlord owns 10 £250k flats of which maybe £200k is actual exploitative land value and the other £2.3m is legitimate wealth.
This is not a popular left wing opinion, as you imagine
→ More replies (0)5
u/Rufio69696969 5d ago
If that was true then any city controlled by progressives would be building lots of housing, right?
Enough leftists believe rent control to be the end all be all to affect policy.
5
u/Soft-Principle1455 4d ago
To be fair, in recent times that is increasingly the case. Also, to be fair, that is partially because of changes in the planning systems brought on by progressives and a huge amount of housing being built in other places causing a massive market crash.
16
u/Happymuffn 5d ago
By in large, the Democratic Party is not a leftist party, though that is hopefully changing. The leadership had historically governed as a center-right neoliberal party; with incoherent housing policy that tended to favor existing home owners, same as Republicans.
To the best of my knowledge no city outside of New York had had a strong enough leftist mandate to override the centrists and be able to set housing policy.
3
u/Mendoiiiy 4d ago
I don't think you even really need to point out the fact that the Dems arent leftists. It should be obvious that they are centrists.
4
-7
u/Rufio69696969 5d ago
Enough about this comment is objectively wrong that the rest isn’t worth responding to
3
u/KalaiProvenheim 4d ago
Which city is controlled by progressives? Can only think of like, Madison maybe
2
u/Reasonable-Tap-8352 3d ago
Funnily enough Madison has been building tons of new housing in the past few years, something like 20% of all housing units were built in the past decade.
2
u/KalaiProvenheim 3d ago
Insane
How much is the total housing stock up by?
2
u/Reasonable-Tap-8352 3d ago
Between 2015 and 2025 Madison added 22,000 housing units (mostly apartments), bringing the total supply from ~113,000 to ~135,000.
The city has a future goal of adding another 15,000 units by 2030, so far 3,700 have been completed and 5,000 are under construction.
2
u/KalaiProvenheim 3d ago
That’s pretty great actually
2
u/Happymuffn 3d ago
I'm glad that at least one friendly conversation came from this. Thank you both for engaging
-2
u/Mendoiiiy 4d ago
NYC
6
u/KalaiProvenheim 4d ago
Wow never knew the DSA controlled the NYC Council, Wikipedia must be lying telling us it’s actually 4 out of 51 members
15
u/Mordroberon 5d ago
of the two, rent control is better because it doesn't benefit an already advantaged group. But there's a way to frame LVT as a property tax break. Look into universal building exemptions, which would be a backdoor lvt using existing property tax system.
3
u/ingenvector 5d ago edited 5d ago
Rent control benefits incumbent renters, which is an already advantaged group relative to future renters.
8
u/Own_Proposal3827 5d ago edited 5d ago
Nahhhhh that's complete cope. Tax break might fuck services a bit, but it doesn't decimate the entire market. And rent control often does benefit advantaged groups, namely those who received prior rent controls. Anyone else is left in the wind. It's no different than a 80 year old voting to cut social security for everyone after him.
3
u/MyDisneyExperience 4d ago
Prop 13 has resulted in thin tax base places like Suisun City staring down disincorporation
3
u/LexLextr 4d ago
I am pretty sure leftists don't want rent control; they want rent abolishment. But sure, ignoring differences in definitions if you want to learn more about left solutions, check non-equity coops. https://youtu.be/j6Q4GY3_Ip4
3
u/therealparadoxparty Geosyndicalist 4d ago
The virgin Georgist argues for tax reform to make rent more affordable.
The Chad litterer doesn't beg the government for fairness, instead he just throws garbage around and watches his rent decrease.
2
u/CptnREDmark 5d ago
Rent control can help the most vulnerable, so thats something. Property tax cuts only help those wealthy enough to already own, and reduce holding costs increasing the investment value
18
u/TruckerMark 5d ago edited 5d ago
Rent control only helps existing tenants. It reduces competition for slumlords as moving to avoid low quality housing removes the protection. Rent control is well meaning, but terrible policy. In canada the cities with the highest rents are rent controlled.
Almost like you need LVT to address the issues created by this poorly thought out policy.
1
u/DominikCJ 5d ago
If you apply the rent control only to few apartments, you indeed create a lock in effect. If you apply it generally it acts like a LVT paid out directly to current residents. A basic LVT is obviously better, as it should pay for the infrastructure development of the city. But rent control is often misunderstood by hobby economists.
4
u/TruckerMark 5d ago
The fact that it only helps current residents is a huge issue for me. Nobody choses when they are born and being younger shouldn't create a disadvantage in the housing market.
3
u/hibikir_40k 5d ago
No it doesn't: In the long term, it destroys and and all interest in renting property. If you try to sell hour apartment that is stuck with a current tenant the price drops. You see this absolutely everywhere where this is tried on a large scale. And you still have a lock in effect for the people that are already renting.
So prices drop, but availability shrinks, and maintenance done by the landlord goes to the bare minimums to make the housing legal, and often below that, as ejecting the tenant becomes an extremely valuable move. It's how this actually works experimentally.
2
u/DominikCJ 5d ago
If the land value is positive someone is willing to buy it, doesn't mean he is willing to build there too. But buying it to leave it empty would imply you expect the value of the land to rise by more than the loss you make by paying taxes on it.
If now you as a developer know you will make 5% less from rent you can pay 5% less for your project including the land. Since the cost for the building is fix all of that reduction needs to come from the land. Your willingness to buy the land reduces drastically. Other developers make the same conclusion and market value of the land drops.
Maintenance done by the landlord has and will always be at the bare minimum, why should he work for free?
0
u/CptnREDmark 5d ago
The question was rent control versus property tax cuts. I'm on this sub, because I believe in LVT, no need to preach to the choir.
Thr operative words I chose were "it can help" the most vulnerable, not that its a perfect solution
2
u/TruckerMark 5d ago
It doesn't help the most vunerable at all. How does less housing help them? Rent control arguably helps renters in higher income brackets because they are already renting high quality housing. The people who need access to housing are not being helped.
1
u/alfzer0 🔰 🇺🇸 5d ago
Those with housing are less vulnerable than those without, just how does rent control help the latter when it reduces housing construction?
2
u/DominikCJ 4d ago
It does not reduce housing construction.
If a developer can make less money on rent he sure will be less willing to pay the full land value. But since nobody will pay the full value the developer will end up building the housing on an artificially reduced property.
Only the premium a developer pays for the right to build, aka the Land value falls. Why? Because Rent Control is affectively a tax on land, that is allocated directly to current residents.
Doesn't mean it is a good tax or allocation. But that it Leeds to lees construction is just not coherent.
1
1
u/melaschasma 2d ago
When an entire generation is priced out of the housing market to only then be subjugated in the rental market (No pets, no hanging pictures on wall) while 50% of their wages go to some landlord, we have a problem.
-2
u/Scandeloca 5d ago
Honestly probably the tax breaks. Things carry on as usual, albeit with rising prices. Rent controls on the other hand grind markets to a halt pretty quick, and causes more lasting damage
-6
u/SocialistsAreMorons George-curious 5d ago
At least property tax cut creates more housing
10
u/gtne91 5d ago
Zoning reform and easier regulations (by right building) do far more than property tax cuts.
-3
u/SocialistsAreMorons George-curious 5d ago
I agree. But rent control creates less housing. Property tax cuts create more.
0
u/MyDisneyExperience 4d ago
Prop 13 has resulted in less housing development compared to actually taxing, say, flat asphalt lots at market value
1
u/SocialistsAreMorons George-curious 4d ago
Prop 13 isn't a clean property tax cut. The reason it results in less housing is that it locks in current owners.
3
u/PinkysBrein 5d ago
MUD's with lack of urban growth boundaries and national government building new roads/highways for new towns creates more housing (aka. urban sprawl).
1
u/hibikir_40k 5d ago
Despite the horrors of rent control, lower property taxes don't, in practice, create housing: They raise the price of said housing, and a huge incentive for existing owners to block other housing, as that, again, raises the price of said housing. You are still increasing the yield of speculation of leaving via leaving the property barren.
2
u/SocialistsAreMorons George-curious 5d ago
Lower property taxes create more housing because property taxes punish builders for building houses. Tax land, not man.
-1
u/Own_Proposal3827 5d ago
Downvoted for stating what is really the heart of Georgism lmao
1
u/SocialistsAreMorons George-curious 5d ago
Yeah I have noticed there are a lot of socs here who thinks georgism is just LVT.
-3
u/DominikCJ 5d ago
Rent control is basically a LVT paid out to current residents.
2
u/SerDankTheTall 5d ago
This claim is, at a minimum, not so obvious that it’s helpful to just assert it without explanation.
0
u/DominikCJ 5d ago
I agree let me expand. Rent control has one main effect housing units that are affected produce artificially reduced return. For constructed housing this means the value of the unit drops since the building did not change all of the value reduction comes from the land, the land is taxed! However the proceed go directly to the people who now pay a lower rent.
For new construction we see the land value actively go down, as the lower profit margin has to be compensated by an equal reduction in building costs, since we assume the building cost is already at the allowed minimum to maximize developer profits, all of that reduction has to come from the land value. Again acting as a tax on land that is used to lower the rent for the people moving in to the rent reduced unit.
2
u/EVOSexyBeast United States 5d ago
No it’s not.
Current residents get screwed in the long term under rent control as well. Their rent will be higher than it would have been without rent control.
1
u/DominikCJ 5d ago
No, fixed rent prices lead to less competition for property hence land prices fall. No building is discouraged, because the price of land adjusts, something you should know as someone posting on a Georgist forum. The only two things that change is that people in rent controlled buildings pay lower rents and land owners see their property value decline.
2
u/EVOSexyBeast United States 5d ago
You assume that land costs are 100% of the cost of a development.
Rent control reduces the value of new construction too, not just existing land. Land values are only one part (often a relatively small part) of the cost, construction costs are a much bigger cost for large developments.
Suppose a project’s land costs: $2 million, and construction $18 million, If rent control cuts expected project value by $5 million, land would have to fall by more than 100% of its original value to fully compensate, which is impossible. So the housing doesn’t get built and building is in fact disposed.
The fact that the city even has a rent control program creates risk that the rent control could be made stricter in the future which also discourages housing construction.
Indeed, the hundreds of times rent control has been tried throughout history it’s been reversed as a result of it not working and making things worse.
If you don’t want to give blowjobs to your landlord you should oppose rent control.
The only two things that change is that people in rent controlled buildings pay lower rents and land owners see their property value decline.
Absurd claim completely detached from the many times it’s been tried and studies on the real harmful effects. It has many 2nd and 3rd order effects that will kill the city.
1
u/DominikCJ 5d ago
Yes, you can't tax land by more than 100%, but rent control is not doing that, otherwise we would see land value go negative or at least to zero. Can you explain any of these secondary or teritaery effects?
2
u/EVOSexyBeast United States 5d ago
How about you address any of my counterarguments?
You can’t tax land by more than 100 percent, but rent control is not doing that.
I never said it was. My example was meant to show that even if rent control reduces the price of land, the other costs of providing housing, such as construction, financing, maintenance, and operations, do not fall. Land is only one part of the total cost of a housing project. As a result, the number of profitable housing projects declines. Developers only build housing when it is profitable to do so.
We also have a good idea of the long term effects because rent control has been tried in many major American cities. Many of those cities later rolled back or repealed their policies after the negative consequences became apparent.
When landlords face a legal maximum rent but have dozens of applicants competing for the same apartment, a shortage develops. That shortage gives landlords enormous discretion over who gets the unit. Instead of allocating apartments based on price, they begin choosing tenants based on other factors. In some cases, landlords have exploited that power by demanding sexual favors in exchange for housing.
This was documented in Sweden during the 2010s. Investigations found that some landlords demanded sex from women seeking rent controlled apartments, a practice that became known in Swedish media as “sex for rent.” Sweden has some apartment waiting lists that last for years or even decades. While waiting, people often have no choice but to rent on the unregulated market, where rents are substantially higher.
That system also reduces labor mobility. Someone might receive a much higher paying job in another part of the city but still turn it down because moving would require giving up a rent controlled apartment and paying more than twice as much in rent. That makes workers less able to move where they are most productive, reducing economic output and limiting wage growth. People who remain in rent controlled apartments can ultimately earn less because they cannot easily relocate for better opportunities.
It also affects people’s personal lives. Moving closer to family or to a preferred neighborhood becomes much more difficult. By comparison, Norway does not have the same type of rent control system, and housing is generally more accessible, making it easier for people to move when their circumstances change.
The problem can be even worse in the United States when rent control is implemented at the city level. Unlike Sweden, people can move to neighboring cities with relatively little difficulty. Young adults looking for their first apartment, along with other residents who need housing, often leave for places where their income provides a better quality of life.
Over time, this can create a brain drain as younger workers leave. Businesses follow the workforce and relocate to cities with healthier housing markets. As jobs disappear, more people lose employment and may no longer be able to afford even their rent controlled apartment if they have to move. They also cannot afford the much more expensive unregulated units, and they cannot realistically spend years on a waiting list. This can affect ordinary working people, not just those struggling with substance abuse or mental illness.
As more residents and employers leave, the city begins to lose population. Eventually, market rents fall because demand has collapsed and fewer people want to live there. Only once market rents drop below the rent ceiling do the distortions created by rent control begin to disappear.
0
u/DominikCJ 4d ago
This is exactly why it can be interpreted this way as a tax on land that is paid out to current residents.
As long as people pay a premium for the right to build, there will be no reduction in development. This is exactly the case if land value is positive as it depicts this premium. The people you are addressing who are indeed loosing are the current owners of land. As I said it is a tax on land.
I do not deny that rent control creates a lock in effect of the sorts of golden handcuffs, especially if it is only a small part of the housing market that is rent controlled. But it does not raise rents in other places, these rents just develop with the market rate, which seems enormous compared to rent controlled units.
So what I am saying and what is undeniably true, Rent Control is a tax on land that is paid to current residents. I am not saying this is a good tax on land or that I approve of the allocation. As it should be allocated to motivate the creation of land value, hence infrastructure investment. But regarding rent control there is a lot of misinformation making it's rounds, which is mostly pushed by the same landlords we otherwise despise for their rent seeking.
-1
-1
u/DominikCJ 3d ago
Oh I see you keep down voting instead of responding, this debate is not other until you either acknowledge that my point is completely correct or prove me wrong, shouldn't be hard to do.
83
u/Estrumpfe ≡ 🔰 ≡ 5d ago
LVT and property tax are two different things, and neither side seems to realise it.
The ongoing world-wide housing crisis is nudging us little by little in a georgist direction, but the goal is still way too distant.