Re:Anti Homeless Spikes
by anonymoushn on Saturday December 28, 2019 @02:54PM
(#21901296)
Repealing prop 13 would actually totally do that
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Anti Homeless Spikes
by joeblow9999 on Sunday December 29, 2019 @12:31PM
(#21907141)
how do you figure that?
Re:Anti Homeless Spikes
by anonymoushn on Sunday December 29, 2019 @11:06PM
(#21910732)
one of the many reasons local governments don't approve housing is that tax revenues from housing rapidly decay to 0 while services for the additional residents cost significantly more than 0
Re:Anti Homeless Spikes
by joeblow9999 on Monday December 30, 2019 @05:35PM
(#21917301)
do you have any references for this? how does the tax revenue 'decay' to 0. Prop 13 doesn't reduce the tax over time but fixes it at a certain amount upon purchase (if the property is new) or transfer if it's sold.
All new houses and transferred properties are taxed at the value they were purchased.
Re:Anti Homeless Spikes
by anonymoushn on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @05:18AM
(#21920056)
No, I have no citations for the claim that inflation is sometimes above 2% or for the claim that the inflation rate for government services (which includes the cost of buying local housing for government employees) is sometimes above 2%. If either of these were true, the tax collected on a given property would increase in nominal terms but decay toward 0 in real terms.
Unrelatedly, Brisbane found that they could raise 9 times as much revenue and provide 0 times as much additional services to residents by approving hotels instead of housing. https://brianlui.dog/2018/08/01/housing-shortages/#_edn4