zlacker

>>eswat+(OP)
It's quite bizarre any jurisdiction would allow someone to buy housing there when they can't legally live in it.

>>causi+N4
> bizarre any jurisdiction would allow someone to buy housing there when they can't legally live in it

Foreign-owned homes are a problem for asset acquirers. Vacant homes are a problem for anyone who needs housing. The former seems to get a lot of visibilty when concerns around the latter get raised.

>>JumpCr+19
> Vacant homes are a problem for anyone who needs housing.

But they pay taxes without demanding any services and the seller assessed they had better use of the capital, they could buy or build a more suitable home.

If I lived in a location with 50% vacant homes all paying property taxes then wouldn’t my schools and streets and all local government services be extremely well funded?

>>alchem+Bc
Kind of by definition you can't pay more in taxes than you contribute to the economy, therefore unoccupied housing is a drain on the local economy.

>>causi+Sy
Your assertion flips economic principles on their head. Vacant homes paying taxes without drawing on local services represent a net gain, not a drain. Taxes paid on these properties directly fund public services, enhancing the community’s infrastructure without additional burden. Furthermore, the investment in property contributes to the economy through construction, maintenance, and property management industries. To claim that unoccupied housing harms the local economy is not logical.

Austrian economics teaches us that restricting foreign investment misinterprets how markets work. Vacant homes signal opportunities for builders, not losses for workers. Investment flows where it’s valued, stimulating demand and construction, not stifling growth. Misallocating housing due to artificial constraints only distorts the market, harming those you aim to help. Let’s not forget, economic growth comes from creating value, not redistributing scarcity.

>>alchem+AH
> To claim that unoccupied housing harms the local economy is not logical.

Sure, property taxes are paid on the house.

But unoccupied homes don't buy groceries and clothes, don't go to restaurants in the local economy.

So they do harm the economy, in the sense that they don't contribute as much to the economy as an occupied home.

>>FireBe+nH1
Exactly. The amount of money I spend that goes to recipients in a ten mile radius utterly dwarfs what I pay in property taxes.

>>causi+EV3
The critical factor in evaluating economic impact is per capita prosperity, not the geographic density of spending. Vacant properties, while not directly contributing to local consumer spending, represent significant capital inflows, enhancing the economic well-being on a per capita basis. Misunderstanding this dynamic overlooks the broader benefits of such investments, including bolstered public budgets and improved resource allocation.

Government intervention to forcibly lower property values or curb vacant properties is misguided and would likely diminish overall prosperity. Instead, efforts should concentrate on dismantling barriers like excessive zoning restrictions and streamlining building permits to encourage development and increase housing supply.

Viewing luxury or seaside properties remaining vacant as a problem ignores the unseen advantages these transactions provide. Sellers receive capital, presumably to be allocated more efficiently, while buyers secure a safe investment, indirectly contributing to the economy’s health. High housing prices signal a need for market adjustments, not for envy-driven policies that would only stifle growth and innovation. The sentiment of envy, while potentially motivating in small-scale societies, can lead to destructive policies in complex modern economies, detracting from the foundational principles that drive progress and prosperity.