this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
140 points (98.6% liked)

Housing Bubble 2: Return of the Ugly

539 readers
1 users here now

A community for discussing and documenting the second great housing bubble.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 24 points 10 months ago

This is why you can't build enough housing to reduce price it will never happen you pave paradise for nothing enjoy destroying what you love while the rich wait

[–] RotaryKeyboard 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Unoccupied does not mean unowned.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago

Yeah, that’s the problem.

[–] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What difference does it make. If no one's in it, it's not making money, yet real estate is still priced like every SFH can get 3k in rent.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That’s what occupancy taxes are for. If it is taxed for every month that it’s empty, it’ll get sold or rented.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Victoria has introduced a tax on vacant homes, but they're finding it hard to enforce in practice (there's really only a bunch of indirect indicators that you can rely on, stuff like census date, electricity use, etc), and it turns out that the bastards that would just leave a house empty have no issue with not declaring this.

[–] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

Land Value Tax solves this problem.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

One in twenty doesn't seem too extreme. There will always be a churn rate. The more relevant question would be, if there is a large number of properties sitting empty for long periods.