8 ms·

Perhaps we should have a system where there is a basic level of housing available for anyone to afford. And anyone who wants something with any luxuries can ren

Perhaps we should have a system where there is a basic level of housing available for anyone to afford. And anyone who wants something with any luxuries can rent something from a business / landlord? That way private landlords can run their business how they want, and if a customer sees value in what they offer they can pay for it.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
This is called Section 8 housing, and it already exists. Though certainly not without problems.
- mattw2121 3y ago
  Problem #1 is that it doesn't meet the requirements of OP. I can't go rent Section 8 housing because I make too much money.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> we should have a system where there is a basic level of housing available for anyone to afford There is plenty of cheap land in the middle of the country. The problem is getting (and wanting to get) there.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  It's a cyclical problem: There are no jobs worth moving for in most of the middle of the country, which means no one wants to move there, which means that there's no workforce for big companies, which means there's no jobs worth moving for. Likewise for social scenes, services, etc., It's the same feedback loop that makes the existing big cities attractive. Good jobs bring people with skills and money, which support services and provide a labor pool for companies that want to hire, which provides a glut of good jobs.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Agree completely. My point is the problem isn't "housing available for anyone to afford," it's affordable housing in Tier 1 cities.
    - angmarsbane 3y ago
      It’s can’t reasonably afford shelter within a reasonable commute of jobs that require you to be in the area.
arcbyte 3y ago
Ive been playing with the math on usong Pareto distributions to provide universal rental assistance. A city could require reporting yearly of all rent prices as part of licensing. Then levy a tax on the 20% most expensive apartments that is sufficient to allow the distribution of that fund to renters in the bottom 20% of income. Or some such scheme. It should provide a strong disincentive on very expensive apartments while allowing the most vulnerable population to live comfortably in 80% of the city's rental offerings.
- dantheman 3y ago
  It'd be a good way to drive wealth out of your city, much like the hollowing out of detroit. Only so many people can live at the expense of someone else before they decide to leave.
- Plasmoid 3y ago
  That would have to be an absolutely crushing tax to make that work. It would also make a really cliff where there are no rental properties between X & Y because the tax pushes up prices so much.
- robocat 3y ago
  > provide a strong disincentive on very expensive apartments Why is that useful? > levy a tax on the 20% most expensive apartments This attitude pisses me off. When is enough taxation fair? Seemingly minor taxes increases in other areas add up to a lot extra in total. I already pay over 50% taxes[1] in New Zealand, but the same attitude as yours is common. I do think it is great to help the less fortunate - that is what most of government taxes are spent on, and why low earners get a boost by paying less tax. The right answer isn't retributive taxes. The right answer is working out how to fix the real estate markets, which are broken because residential property is an investment, when it should be just for housing. Residential property should not be an investment for financial profit - a Ponzi scheme which is screwing everyone except the well off. In New Zealand our property market is as broken as the USA from what I can tell. Building more houses helps according to micro-economics but it isn't the answer: New Zealand is building lots of houses but prices for the majority remain out of reach. There is enough land by definition. [1] Top tax rate in New Zealand is 39% and GST (NZ sales tax) is 15%. And Most investments are taxable here. I'm currently investigating residential real estate investing because there's few other reasonable choices. I hate property investment but all the government incentives push me towards it.
splitstud 3y ago
[dead]
dantheman 3y ago
Just allow people to do what they want with their land. If a neighborhood want's low rises, let them buy the air rights from each land owner. Then the neighborhood can sell them or not, but there's a cost. End minimum parking requirements, end min room size requirements, let lots of different types of housing be built.
- thatcat 3y ago
  That will never happen, not many people support repealing the ADA
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Anyone can afford means zero, FWIW. Many people that are homeless aren’t broke, but most are. There have been experiment with public housing over the years all over the world and in the US. The anyone can afford was achieved by pegging rent in the federal programs at 25% of income. The problem is “any luxuries” boils down to safe, maintained properties not riddled with crime. To get economies of scale they were built as large projects which essentially created high density zones of inescapable poverty. They were / are extremely unpopular with literally everyone, especially the people that live there. Unfortunately the alternatives don’t scale well in the US given all the exact same reasons that cause housing to be so expensive in the first place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing
- Retric 3y ago
  The solution which works in other countries is to have local governments build a large percentage of all housing. If 60% of the population is in nice housing pegged to income then the crazy can be get diluted across the general population. What the US tried was to stick all the crazy in a tiny area so it became a self reinforcing problem. We’ve adjusted to paying market rates for subsidized housing which spreads the crazy around, but unfortunately costs more than just building housing.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago

This is called Section 8 housing, and it already exists. Though certainly not without problems.

mattw2121 3y ago
Problem #1 is that it doesn't meet the requirements of OP. I can't go rent Section 8 housing because I make too much money.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> we should have a system where there is a basic level of housing available for anyone to afford There is plenty of cheap land in the middle of the country. The problem is getting (and wanting to get) there.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
It's a cyclical problem: There are no jobs worth moving for in most of the middle of the country, which means no one wants to move there, which means that there's no workforce for big companies, which means there's no jobs worth moving for. Likewise for social scenes, services, etc., It's the same feedback loop that makes the existing big cities attractive. Good jobs bring people with skills and money, which support services and provide a labor pool for companies that want to hire, which provides a glut of good jobs.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Agree completely. My point is the problem isn't "housing available for anyone to afford," it's affordable housing in Tier 1 cities.
  - angmarsbane 3y ago
    It’s can’t reasonably afford shelter within a reasonable commute of jobs that require you to be in the area.

arcbyte 3y ago

Ive been playing with the math on usong Pareto distributions to provide universal rental assistance. A city could require reporting yearly of all rent prices as part of licensing. Then levy a tax on the 20% most expensive apartments that is sufficient to allow the distribution of that fund to renters in the bottom 20% of income. Or some such scheme. It should provide a strong disincentive on very expensive apartments while allowing the most vulnerable population to live comfortably in 80% of the city's rental offerings.

dantheman 3y ago
It'd be a good way to drive wealth out of your city, much like the hollowing out of detroit. Only so many people can live at the expense of someone else before they decide to leave.
Plasmoid 3y ago
That would have to be an absolutely crushing tax to make that work. It would also make a really cliff where there are no rental properties between X & Y because the tax pushes up prices so much.
robocat 3y ago
> provide a strong disincentive on very expensive apartments Why is that useful? > levy a tax on the 20% most expensive apartments This attitude pisses me off. When is enough taxation fair? Seemingly minor taxes increases in other areas add up to a lot extra in total. I already pay over 50% taxes[1] in New Zealand, but the same attitude as yours is common. I do think it is great to help the less fortunate - that is what most of government taxes are spent on, and why low earners get a boost by paying less tax. The right answer isn't retributive taxes. The right answer is working out how to fix the real estate markets, which are broken because residential property is an investment, when it should be just for housing. Residential property should not be an investment for financial profit - a Ponzi scheme which is screwing everyone except the well off. In New Zealand our property market is as broken as the USA from what I can tell. Building more houses helps according to micro-economics but it isn't the answer: New Zealand is building lots of houses but prices for the majority remain out of reach. There is enough land by definition. [1] Top tax rate in New Zealand is 39% and GST (NZ sales tax) is 15%. And Most investments are taxable here. I'm currently investigating residential real estate investing because there's few other reasonable choices. I hate property investment but all the government incentives push me towards it.

splitstud 3y ago

[dead]

dantheman 3y ago

Just allow people to do what they want with their land. If a neighborhood want's low rises, let them buy the air rights from each land owner. Then the neighborhood can sell them or not, but there's a cost. End minimum parking requirements, end min room size requirements, let lots of different types of housing be built.

thatcat 3y ago
That will never happen, not many people support repealing the ADA

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Anyone can afford means zero, FWIW. Many people that are homeless aren’t broke, but most are. There have been experiment with public housing over the years all over the world and in the US. The anyone can afford was achieved by pegging rent in the federal programs at 25% of income. The problem is “any luxuries” boils down to safe, maintained properties not riddled with crime. To get economies of scale they were built as large projects which essentially created high density zones of inescapable poverty. They were / are extremely unpopular with literally everyone, especially the people that live there. Unfortunately the alternatives don’t scale well in the US given all the exact same reasons that cause housing to be so expensive in the first place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing

Retric 3y ago
The solution which works in other countries is to have local governments build a large percentage of all housing. If 60% of the population is in nice housing pegged to income then the crazy can be get diluted across the general population. What the US tried was to stick all the crazy in a tiny area so it became a self reinforcing problem. We’ve adjusted to paying market rates for subsidized housing which spreads the crazy around, but unfortunately costs more than just building housing.