Can We Make Houses Affordable... Without Destroying the Economy?

What is a 'good economy' without affordable housing?
What?
What .... what is a good economy with homeless people?

The 2 problems I see with the land tax idea is obviously once the tax is on the books the government never takes it away. So you would still be paying income tax you'd still be paying property tax or whatever else they want to throw at you. Ⅱ problem is obvious too. Who sets the value of a land? Like right now we have property assessors that go up by the government and decide your building is worth half $1,000,000 so your property tax goes up. So It would be the same with this land tax. Some government official would go around saying everybody's land was worth more than it was previously and taxes would go up. To the point where you're actually better off with your land being almost worthless to see pay less taxes.

increases taxes, we need more learing centers /s

The solution is to break up all private equity firms and ban corporations from buying real estate ever again

Land value tax also just Jack's up rents if land lord's don't want to sell..

Land prices are the real problem.



Every citizen should have the opportunity to lease a piece of land to build a home of their own. Reasonably priced government leased land (like a mobile home park but public owned) could increase home ownership to 90% or more. The government could start by buying abandoned land under eminent domain, which would also stabilize prices and make buying more rentable land affordable for taxpayers.



Those who privately invest in land must maximize their investment by charging whatever the market will bear which creates absurd land market bubbles. However, if citizens owned most land, almost everyone could afford to lease land almost anywhere at the cost of town utilities and services. The price of existing properties would be kept in check because anyone could build for close to actual cost.



Mobile homes are inexpensive, but privately owned parks make them poor investments that banks won't give loans for. Some citizen groups buy the land under their mobile homes, but like condominiums, the market can still get out of control.



The streets are all owned by the people, why not house lots too? Seems like the least complex solution.

No. We need to destroy the economy. Destroy the economy is a misleading phrase. It means, hurt the asset class. Those of us who view homes as a place to live, start a family could care less. When the economy goes up in flames, those who already had money stand to lose it because they believe they are entitled to passive income. Meanwhile, the working American may be able to buy a place to actually live without enslaving themselves to give up 40% of their income for their entire working lives and into retirement.

I want to see more neighborhoods like Amsterdam where any given building could be 10 apartments, a couple apartments over a shop, or a mansion, with no obvious way to know without going inside.

To me that's the key to affordable housing. No cheap ghetto or gentrified areas. Just a walkable neighborhood where everyone can find a place to live.

In japan homes are depreciating assets they are homes to be lived in and newer homes are priced higher but does depreciate over time, so unless you can rebuild your home to code and regulations your not getting more on your home. Like a car used home is the same as a used car.
So when you sell your home you don't make money you get some money in return but the home you buy are also similar in value and should not cost more. but if you never sell your home your basically save money, you don't pay more money in rent and you are only paying for upkeep and your cost of living. So yes housing is so important for stability.

All Georgism would do is just force us all out of our single family homes and move out of the cities until the city expands again and forces us out of the suburbs and we move further out again and again.

I know an Italian and Dutch couple in scarsdale NY that actually had to bid for rent on a full home because private equity bought it. Total scumshow.

I don’t give a fuck about “the economy”

Housing is a basic need and everyone has a right to have housing - we are so restricted from creating our own that we find ourselves in this situation.

These sponsored segments are doing my head in; I wish YouTube made uploaders add in a skip button…

It's quite easy.

Ban companies from from buying or owning houses/apartments or purchasing other construction companies. And in case they own any, force them to sell at market price. If they don't sell in 3 months, they have to lower the price by 10% of the original. If the price reaches $0, they have to give it to some government agency who will distribute it to applicants. Priority will be given to single-parents, newlyweds or the elderly.


Also, no family unit can own more than 2 properties. If they do, they have to put the excess on sale. One vacation home is enough.

And for companies which hide their assets, add jail time for the CEO and other executives, alongside a percentage of total asset value in fines. Cause fuck them, that's why.

NO Land Value Tax for poor Americans living in homes under $100,000. The upkeep on the home is hard enough. No taxes for disability people. No taxes for Any American making under $100,000. No taxes for anyone who is a vulnerable individual with severe societal issues.

Wait so correct me if I'm wrong but the idea is that in order to lower housing we should make policies that affect demand instead of supply. Policies that subsidize housing works against us because it shapes housing to a more lucrative investment. By getting rid of those and adding taxes to property we make owning land and sitting on them less profitable.

Doesn't that logic also add to IP? If you had to pay an IP tax wouldn't you also deincentivize gobbling up and sitting on IPs as well.
Now that I think about it isn't that why we have inflation in the first place? By making it on purpose around 2% we incentivize investment rather than sitting on money.

If making houses affordable means destroying the economy, then the economy was already destroyed and the upper class doesn’t want to admit that what has been working for them has been severely harming the country.

When it comes down to people need to stop looking at their house as an asset but rather just as a place to live.

If I have to pay a land tax on a property I own, that's not ownership. That's renting from the government. And in today's world, having to put aside thousands for a yearly land tax just wouldn't be possible for many.

If this tax only applied to companies that own houses, that may be an improvement. But I'd rather not see my aunt lose her house when she already doesn't have much left agter expenses.

Land value taxes are a terrible idea if you love the outdoors and wild spaces. Such a thing would make all hunting and recreational become developed, taking away these spaces and opportunities for outdoor recreation for future generations. These large tracks of land are often gifted to the state’s DNR and become open to the public later on. Also, what would such a tax do to ranching and farming operations across the country? Do we just want crappy cookie cutter houses everywhere? Trash idea.

Affordable housing and economy will survive. It is written with God all things are possible. It is written as for God his way is perfect.

I'm a Georgist. Hong Kong and Singapore have Georgist instincts.

You buy property with money you don't actually have loan and then rent it to others too pay the bank and basically be a leech instead of getting a job like the rest of us

Yea if the people with all the supply wouldn't whine like spoiled children who think they have a right to seconds thirds and fourths before other get firsts. Housing going down great for everyone renting or who doesn't own property or is gonna own it but everyone else it's bad for.

Or make it 200

Cheaper they can make it 3000

They should make a house like this

Land Value Tax?

If the t-word is particularly taboo in your state legislature, then you could throw around a "universal building exemption." It does the same thing as an LVT and farmers get property tax exemptions all of the time.

I’m watching this video because I’m considering building affordable houses. The problem I’m having right now is that I am a skilled worker and business owner but I am not a General contractor. Banks will not finance the houses that I want to build because I am not a licensed contractor.
General contractors will not partner with me because the houses that I am designing are meant to be very easy to maintain and cheap to build. They will also last a long time with little maintenance. Contractors want to make money so if houses start becoming more efficient the way that I’m designing them, they won’t be able to charge as much for the garbage houses that they build now.
I’m half asleep writing this but hope it makes sense.
Wish me luck. I’m trying to help.

Affordable housing is a problem, but the more serious issue is, you and Boyle need to stop flirty fighting and finally make out with each other.

Don't lie to the public -- in reference to home affordability:



Both Democrats and Republicans congress consistently ran deficits, adding up to $37 trillion in debt. That deficit spending inflated asset prices—gold doubled, the stock market nearly tripled, and home equity climbed to $34 trillion. The rise in home values wasn’t just organic growth, it was fueled by government overspending, making homes less affordable for buyers.

Under the GFC the bond rate was artificially forced down.

For housing to be affordable, alternative investments need to yield higher returns - if you can get 8% in relatively secure bonds then you are not going to care about 2-3% yield on an apartment.

Taxes is a tool that achieves the same.

The solutions - build more affordable housing, children don’t need their own bedrooms nor do we need super big places.

Human beings slept a dozen people to a teepee for hundreds of thousands of years, our security needs have evolved since then and most of us would want to live in something bullet, fire, hurricane etc proof but we don’t all need 3000 square foot + houses. I could happily live with a family of four in a 650 square foot home.

Also, rezoning etc make it easier for developers to build

The land value tax thing would both benefit and hurt Larry Fink at the same time 🤷🏻

Being a first time home owner I really don’t care if I’m underwater on my loan if it means more people can afford to buy a home im cool with it, im not planning on selling anytime soon this will be my home

Housing is a human right, we need shelter to survive

Short answer: No.