Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by theseus7 3160 days ago
The first part of the solution is to completely eliminate mortgage subsidies and mortgage interest deductions. These do not increase the supply of housing, they only subsidize demand for more expensive houses and increase indebtedness, and increase the flow of capital into non-productive areas of the economy such as mortgage lending and mortgage backed assets.

The second part of the solution is to convert all property taxes into Land Value Taxes, so that idle and vacant land is taxed at exactly the same rate as land containing well maintained houses. Local governments would no longer get higher payouts for zoning for high end housing, they would only get higher payouts if they raised the net desirability of all land within the borders of their city as a whole.

The land value tax would also free up vacant, idle and underutilized land for actual use and improvement, by making land unattractive as an asset for investment or speculation. This would greatly increase the competitiveness of the housing market, because if it is no longer profitable to hold onto a vacant building, a parking lot, or a strip mall in a high demand area after the carrying cost applied by the land value tax, the vacant lot might be split up and sold to smaller owner-operators, the parking lot might be replaced by several smaller town houses, and the strip mall might be replaced by a mixed used development with additional housing units builtin above the shops, increasing average quantity of housing units per city block or per area unit measure.

> How willing are banks to issue loans at the lower end?

Focusing on banks and subsidizing loans is what is fueling this problem. The solution is not to make loans easier to get, it is to drastically lower the price of land and increase the efficiency at which land is used. When the price for land is cheaper and closer to a market price rather than a monopoly price, far fewer people will have to bother with loans or mortgages in the first place. Lower end housing can be made substantially more affordable even if all mortgage assistance schemes are eliminated.

4 comments

You're putting the poor in an awfully tight position there. Between no tax deduction for a mortgage and paying the same property tax (what you call land value tax) for their trailer as the mansion next door, they're kind of getting screwed.

And what about old people that have owned their own house for decades? If the local economy goes up, increasing the land value tax, they either leave or go bankrupt. And the kicker is that their investment into their home is now worth a lot less.

You're putting the poor in an awfully tight position there. Between no tax deduction for a mortgage and paying the same property tax (what you call land value tax) for their trailer as the mansion next door, they're kind of getting screwed.

Poor people don’t benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. With todays low interest rate, you have to have a mortgage of over $300,000 to have more than the $120000 standard deduction in interest.

With the median household income being $60,000 a year, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a scenario where many would itemize deductions after mortgage interest, state taxes and property taxes.

People with trailers are not benefiting from the mortgage interest deduction.

The mortgage interest deduction overwhelmingly benefits households earning over $100,000 per year. Only one in five tax filers take the mortgage interest deduction, the extreme majority are in that $100k+ income bracket.

The substantially increased standard deduction is far more important than the MID for the middle class. Cutting the MID tax break for the top 1/3 of earners, is what will help pay for raising the standard deduction that is a huge benefit to the bottom 2/3 of earners.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/31/that-beloved-mortgage-deduct...

"Mortgage Interest Deduction Saves Middle Class Taxpayers All Of $51/Month"

"Most of the MID 2012 tax benefits went to people making six figures or more. Households earning over $100,000 in 2012 claimed 77.3 percent of the total MID tax savings, essentially the same as in 2010. And just looking at those making $200,000 or more, we found the very top earners claimed 34.6 percent of the total MID benefits and saved $5,021 on average for 2012."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/18/mortgage-in...

When an area gets better economically, it becomes more desirable, so home prices (and land prices) go up. Outside of California, property taxes go up too, and retired owners often do the math and cash out.
I think the counter argument is that housing prices will fall and be closer to free market. I can't really get much worse for the poor, the status quo clearly isn't helping them.

You do have a point, but there seems to be another side as well.

If your poor the tax deduction doesn't mean much since it's based on a lower tax bracket.
Another issue is the labor. I haven't personally looked into what the underlying reasons might be, but in Quebec, construction workers have all the power. If they don't show up, come late, under-deliver or do sloppy work, there's not much recourse, there's no one else. Given that these jobs are some of the highest paying relative to education level, there must be some artificial constraint that perpetuates this. If you are a general contractor, it's nearly impossible to provide consistent, high quality service, because they simply have little control over their workers.
Agreed. The subsidies(tax breaks) help drive up prices (just as student loans have inflated higher edu cost). Unfortunately, in the case of housing, as mentioned, property taxes come into play. It seem unlikely gov is going to cut off its own revenue stream.

My point about the banks was, we can't expect low end houses to be built if they can't be sold (because banks are less likely to finance them.) I'm not suggesting artficial support. I'm curious to know if the void in this segment in housing is fed by a void in bank support.

How would this affect farmland?
Pennsylvania has a "Clean and Green" act [1] that "bases property taxes on use values rather than fair market values" for farmland. Must have at least 10 acres or produce $2,000 in annual revenue off the land. For me, this cuts my property taxes substantially. If farmland is pulled out of Clean and Green (perhaps to sell it for building houses?) the landowner owes back taxes of 7 years.

I would think that other states have similar programs.

1- http://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Encourage/farmland/clean/Pages...