Hacker News Reader

Comment by europoorean | Hacker News Reader

The issue with that is the disincentive to sell (or buy), which leads a lot of people to stay put in their oversized home during retirement, for example.

In the UK, 'stamp duty' is something that buyers pay (as opposed to sellers), but sellers also have to buy, so everyone pays to move and everyone stays put to avoid paying.

(And of course no one builds, which is the biggest issue).

I'd say it's OK to defer your property taxes until you sell (or die), but it shouldn't be the default, only something you apply for if you're in a vulnerable position.

I think it's a great idea to let land taxes create the incentives to build efficiently.

View on HN

In Austria it is even worse. The stamp duty is only for literally buying the house in your name. Thus all sufficiently expensive real estate is wrapped in shell companies where the transfer is untaxed.

The result - stamp duty is exclusively paid by middle class people actually buying homes, never by the rentier class. They already used the money up front to buy the votes for this law apparently

Using shell companies to dodge stamp duty has been specifically made illegal in the UK. Of course the rules around it are really complicated, to avoid legitimate companies that own property from being affected. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-corporate-bo...

Except they don't, taxing single house owner is just cost of living increase any time area gets gentrified or more desirable

It's basically excuse to get rid of poor that made a mistake of buying a house in area that turned more expensive 2 decades after.

Tax anything after first house, sure, but taxing house by value is terrible idea that never actually worked in a way proponents are saying it would

You don't need to tax the house value, only the land.

You don't get rid of the 'poor'/less wealthy if you allow building higher and thus have a more efficient use of land as land values increase. All owners would share the cost of their land value tax.

The problem is not building higher in areas with very high demand. Of course they become 'rich only neighbourhoods' or whatever.

If a house is worth £1M, a flat in a 5-story building should be less than 200k in the same location. We can't have houses in city centres! We can't have houses 5 min from the city centre! We could definitely have houses 1h from the city centre in a small town. In London or NY we shouldn't, though!

I always tell my internet friends that they should think hard about second order effects. Stamo duty has very negative second order effects. Land value tax has very positive second order effects. Property taxes sit somewhere in the middle.

European solutions to everything. Just increase taxes.

Then get all surprised Pikachu face when the people who found profitable companies all leave.

At least the name checks out.

Instead of being snarky at random people online, I would suggest reading about land value tax. No worries if not, of course, but it's usually something that conservatives brand as 'communism' and progressives brand as 'capitalism' as an easy way out of any discussion.

Anyone supporting it will most likely support removing other taxes, such as stamp duty or council tax, or lowering income taxes to compensate. A net zero change would be massively positive.

I live in California where real estate taxes are 1%. I currently pay $915 per month in real estate taxes alone. I'm not really sure why I should agree to increase that.

I find all these conversations dumb. Real estate taxes after paying for roads and schools are entirely punitive in nature. They grew from real local needs but now I find people saying that we should increase them only to encourage the current owner to sell to those deemed more worthy somehow. Because our taxes are tied to real estate value the budget has actually ballooned far greater than inflation. The schools here are extremely well funded and the roads get repaved long before their natural life time.

I think our balance works really well right now. So I find suggestions to just fall flat.

Oh the funny thing is we already subsidize healthcare so much in this state that it basically is socialized healthcare but surprise surprise that's actually part of the reason we have a deficit right now.

If you want to have an honest conversation, I'm here. Meanwhile, I will assume you didn't respond to anything I said because you were up at 3-4am California time.

Talking to you is pointless. You haven't said a single intelligent thing.

the incentive is if they sell they realize their gains and are left much richer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com