this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1048 points (99.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12728 readers
2655 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Personally I think the landlords would just increase the rent while saying their interests are literally the only ones that need protection from the state because they generate all the revenue but can't blame them for trying.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Generally speaking landlords charge as much in rent as the market will bear. If they could get away with charging more they would already be doing so.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Right, and when tenants aren't paying taxes?

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Rents will presumably rise accordingly, and then be captured in the form of a tax that is both very difficult to evade and no longer harms economic efficiency

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

I think that's a rather hopeful view of the situation, but, on the other hand, I guess it would also help real estate bubbles from forming so there's that at least.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Right, and when tenants aren't paying taxes?

Then tenants will keep more money, in any case where there's any competition in housing.

And in any case where there's no competition in the housing supply, tenants will still be unharmed because they're already paying the maximum amount that landlords can get away with.

It's risk free for tenants.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Counterintuitively, a LVT wouldn't distort prices because the supply of land is fixed.