[bagels]

Homeowners already pay a wealth tax.

[throw0101a]

> Homeowners already pay a wealth tax.

If you're talking about property taxes, then renters pay that as well through their rent (which passes through the landlord before getting to the city/county).

* https://realestatemagazine.ca/do-residential-tenants-pay-pro...

And is some (many?) cases higher rates than owners:

* https://www.renx.ca/renters-often-pay-higher-municipal-taxes...

[raincole]

Renters will always pay one way or another. You can name it wealth tax or property tax or house tax. It doesn't matter -- the result will be higher rent.

[sph]

Economy's doing good? Rent increases because people can afford to pay more, and demand is always very high.

Economy's doing badly? Rent increases because costs and taxes for the landlord are higher.

UBI? Rent increases because people have more disposable income.

---

The secret to the infinite money glitch is to maintain a much lower supply than the demand, and to concentrate jobs within a small area

[throw0101a]

The point of my post was to indicate that just because you're a home owner (rather than a renter) does not make you special.

Property taxes are not wealth taxes, but fees for services rendered by the local government. Both home owners and renters (may) benefit from those fees.

[bagels]

It's a wealth tax. You're just describing what the funds are used for. Other types of wealth tax can pay for those things too.

[refurb]

This isn’t true. Plenty of landlords don’t cover their monthly expenses for providing the housing.

[WaxProlix]

In what sense are landlords "providing" housing? Is there an argument around like, stabilizing a demand floor for new construction or something, or is this one of those weird in-group terms that cover over what might otherwise be seen as a relationship of power or dominance?

Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.

[refurb]

Providing housing is exactly how the word is defined - giving something - in this case a place to live.

Go and ask all the landlords in Toronto how the finances are working out.

Tons of landlords were cash flow negative against fully loaded costs. Then the market flipped and house prices dropped 30%.

Now they’re shelling out $2000 of their own cash per month, gaining $500 in equity, while they pay down a $700,000 mortgage on a home worth $500,000.

[WaxProlix]

This sounds like an investment that didn't pan out - I've had one or two of those myself, never pleasant. But are they providing housing? I guess in my mind the builders, equity incentive assistors, re-zoning advocates, etc might be 'providing housing'. How is a landlord providing housing?

[throw0101a]

> This isn’t true. Plenty of landlords don’t cover their monthly expenses for providing the housing.

Just because landlords don't clear their monthly expenses does not mean that the tenant's rent is not going to cover (a portion of) property taxes.

[refurb]

Sure but it’s not a direct one for one.

It like me buying a laptop and saying I pay for the electricity in the factory in China.

While it’s true the money helps pay for it, it’s not a pss through expense.

[consumer451]

Then they should get out of that business, right?

I assume that rising property values make the endeavor worthwhile?

tone: I am not being snarky here. Genuine question.

[theodpHN]

And even if the house represents negative wealth - same property taxes apply to a house regardless of whether the owner owns it outright with no mortgage (wealthy) or if they're paying 8% interest on an underwater mortgage (negative wealth). And, unlike VCs, property taxes are paid - often for decades - before one even sees if they'll even realize any wealth from the estimated value of their home that they pay tax on.