[IG_Semmelweiss]

this is a huge argument for a real estate tax on non-primary residential property. Then, triple the tax its not rented during the year.

do we want to allow wealthy princes to have a pied a terre on park ave ? OK. Let them pay in blood for the privilege.

Of course, neither "progressives" or "conservatives" will be willing to threaten upper classes, real estate lobby, and political donors, with such a tax.. despite that the people that stand most to gain from this would be lower income AND first time owners ...who are voters in their own district!

[natchy]

> this is a huge argument

What was the argument. I didn’t see an argument. That fact that expensive apartments exist?

> let them pay in blood for the privilege

Why? Follow this thread of envy and it ends at a guillotine for anyone with wealth.

[ClumsyPilot]

There is investment of capital with positive value, like in startups.

There is investment with (mostly( neutral value like gold

There is investment with negative value where you buy a resource that everyone needs (like land) and then you hog it and prevent others from using it. For economy to work properly, the latter must be discouraged.

[dgs_sgd]

I think the parent comment's argument is that expensive apartments exist _and_ the vast majority of them are not used for living, but rather a place for the uber rich to park their money.

From the article > “But these apartments are turnkey—the kind of person they’re trying to appeal to would never live there.”