[rsj_hn]

> tax unoccupied residencies

OK, sounds promising

> ..use that tax to subsidize housing

record needle scratch sound.

Subziding housing drives up the price, because it increases demand for housing. Have we not learned this lesson? After so many years, this basic economic fact is still tripping people up?

Please, stop with the housing subsidies. Why do you want to make housing more expensive?

[imtringued]

Direct housing subsidies don't prevent additional supply. Rent control prevents additional supply.

Also, politicians have to be accountable for the subsidies which means that restrictive zoning will burn a pocket into the local budget. They don't give a damn about losses due to rent control. I.e. they privatize political gains and socialize the economic losses.

[rsj_hn]

> "Direct housing subsidies don't prevent additional supply".

The idea that the price of housing will not increase if a good is subsidized because the supply isn't "prevented from increasing" is so confused and wrong it literally makes me sad.

We have the data of house prices rising as a result of subsidies. Housing is half land and half structure, and in constrained areas, 80% land and 20% structure. Land does not increase. Moreover even if housing was all structure and land was free, the subsidies cause houses to become bigger, as people can afford more structure, leading per house prices to rise.

Then you continue with a string of cliches, "privatize gains" etc. And a complaint that other people don't care enough.

Well, OK, but what of it? We don't shoot ourselves in the foot because other people don't care.

Adopting policies that make the world a worse place just because you are morally outraged is a terrible way of doing public policy.

[int_19h]

I didn't meant subsidizing rent. I meant subsidizing housing - as in, using that money to build more of it.