How would a wealth tax affect real estate rentals?

Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨atro_city@fedia.io⁩ to ⁨nostupidquestions@lemmy.world⁩

Alright, Tax Wealth, Not Work (TWNW). Let's say the wealth tax got implemented at 2% on wealth over 10 million. I'm unclear on whether it would increase single home ownership and reduce the number of available rentals and thus make it even more difficult to find living space. Or would the tax revenues from it allow for the construction of more community housing?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Steve@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The idea is to make the wealthy sell some of their assets. Thus driving the price of those assets down. If people horde fewer houses, the market of buyers shrinks and prices fall.

Now a 2% tax on certain assets won’t solve everything. But its a good start. There will need to be a number of loopholes closed and other taxes targeting the super wealthy, in order to make a real difference.

source
- atro_city@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  The idea is to make the wealthy sell some of their assets. Thus driving the price of those assets down. If people horde fewer houses, the market of buyers shrinks and prices fall.
  
  But who will they be selling to? I imagine it will be people who actually want to live in their homes, not just rent them out. Wouldn't that reduce the number of available homes people can rent?
  
  source
  - andrewta@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Is my logic it would reduce the number of homes available for rent. More people would be able to own. Because more homes in the market would be available. But people would be buying them to live in them. We literally can’t build homes fast enough. Every time there’s a downturn in the market building of homes slows down. And that puts us even further behind.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    That’s not a bad point. Many options exist to offload property though, including bulldozing a mansion on 10acres that no one is buying and turning it into a housing sub division
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Steve@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Maybe. Mostly it’ll drive down the rent, since the homes are worth less.
    
    source
- JumpyWombat@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  The idea is to make the wealthy sell some of their assets. Thus driving the price of those assets down. If people horde fewer houses, the market of buyers shrinks and prices fall.
  
  If it’s a tax on wealth, what difference does it make if you own an asset or its value in cash?
  
  By the way: sales may reduce the stock of properties for rent driving the prices up.
  
  source
  - Steve@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Not necessity. Since housing will be cheaper to buy, some will do that instead of rent. so the market of renters will be smaller, keeping rental prices in check.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - bitcrafter@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    I think that the implication was that they would have to sell in order to come up with the cash to pay the tax?
    
    source
JumpyWombat@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
It depends on the capacity of the landlords to pass down the increased cost and by how many would sell.

If there is a shortage of rentals, the rents will go up. Many sales may also cause a shortage.

source
HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Everyone who buys is not longer a renter. So for every rental lost you lose a renter. I don’t see why it would effect it at all.

source
- atro_city@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Well, there is a lack of houses for rent at the moment. Aaand, while writing that, I remembered that there are lot of things standing empty because they are for investment! If those were forced to be sold, that would add more housing stock on the market.
  
  Thanks for the comment.
  
  source
  - HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    thats one good thing about high property taxes including the land value tax idea. Makes it harder to sit on real estate because of the recurring costs.
    
    source