Kamala's New Economic Agenda (A disappointment)

Both major candidates seem sadly enthusiastic for dirigisme. Trump thinks he’s smart enough to impose industrial policy and 20% tariffs. Harris, while apparently retreating from Medicare for all and federal job guarantees, wants price controls and a major housing role for the feds. Neither seems particularly interested in what Congress might think.

If we’re not careful, we may see a return to the semi-fascistic days of FDR, with enthusiastic mandarins and commissars monitoring the country’s economic hallways, and businesses pressured to post blue eagle placards to show their enthusiasm for the regime.

Quote:

---

I think that inflation has caused the housing crisis

---

I don't think it's inflation, but I think it's somewhat related, it's high interest rates right now. High interest rates are preventing construction (so my partner works in construction but his is strictly white collar work - an email job like me :laff:). High interest rates are causing housing not to be built right now, the whole construction industry seems in deep recession. I don't think the economy is in recession, I think that industry is. But I get kind of exasperated, if half the years the market is like "nope won't build, conditions not perfect" how are we ever going to maintain sufficient housing purely via market mechanisms? Another period of time the market wouldn't build was post 2008 and that is often given as one reason housing never kept up with population. And all this is on top of other conditions that may limit building even when we have ideal market conditions (zoning etc.). But anyway we also don't have ideal market conditions right now, subsidies for building isn't that crazy in a market that is broken by high interest rates, it's basically a counter-cyclical stimulus to the industry.

Quote:

---

as has the wealthy investor "swoop-in" as you said, and also baby boomers stuck in their McMansions and unwilling to move, and also the high expectations for "starter homes" by young people etc. etc. It's a very complex issue.

---

If there actually isn't enough housing for people, and the number of housing just isn't sufficient and that is definitely the case here, then the problem is really just there isn't enough housing. And I absolutely 100% don't mean we need to build single family homes, building more apartments would probably be the best, multi-family is a better use of land. Condos are also multi-family and I have no problem with that ownership structure in theory (paying a mortgage rather than rent) but in PRACTICE ... some of condos built do seem at this point being use for speculation purposes and held empty by people who don't live in them. So again just build more apartments (help me out here, the rent is too damn high :laff: ). Actually more radical than that: build single room occupancy with bedrooms and bathrooms and nothing else. Do I want to live like that? Heck no! But I'm like maybe not the target market, the target market is those who would otherwise be homeless, students, those fleeing bad situations who just need a roof etc. etc..

The old growth forest argument is going to fall on deaf ears when people don't have a place to live. But what about wasteful use of resources? Does anyone seriously want to make the case that having a roof over one's head is a waste of resources? Because then they are seriously arguing we all become hunter gathers or something, because in modern society it's a basic need. And unless the people saying this are living in caves, um the hypocrisy argument is way overused, you can criticize society even if you live in it, but it might apply here. I do think old growth forests should be preserved, but homelessness is probably not the best way to do so.

As for the Harris proposal of giving money to local governments, while I think it's possible some states might use this money well, giving money to cities? Ugh. We have like several sales taxes going on now to fund dealing with homeless and almost no housing has been built, and noone seems really sure where the money went, and I'm not likely to vote to renew the tax even.

I caught a bit of the morning talk shows where they were talking with Tammy Duckworth as some sort of democratic policy representative. When asked how all of the housing proposals would be paid for, she said from the elimination of Trump's tax breaks for the wealthy. I'm not sure how that equation would balance?

I'm relatively uneducated over Airbnb. Are wealthy investors really grabbing up enough to affect overall housing availability? It would seem like that would take quite a few. I don't know of any in my modestly priced immediate neighborhood, although wealthy investors house flipping is common. In a college town nearby they are limited by local zoning, which seems like an easy solution if it's an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I caught a bit of the morning talk shows where they were talking with Tammy Duckworth as some sort of democratic policy representative. When asked how all of the housing proposals would be paid for, she said from the elimination of Trump's tax breaks for the wealthy. I'm not sure how that equation would balance?

I'm relatively uneducated over Airbnb. Are wealthy investors really grabbing up enough to affect overall housing availability? It would seem like that would take quite a few. I don't know of any in my modestly priced immediate neighborhood, although wealthy investors house flipping is common. In a college town nearby they are limited by local zoning, which seems like an easy solution if it's an issue.

---

You hear that “we’ll make the rich pay” thing a lot. But without much by way of specifics on how much “the rich” might reasonably be expected to yield. It’s a sort of magical thinking that plays well with a certain class of voter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

You hear that “we’ll make the rich pay” thing a lot. But without much by way of specifics on how much “the rich” might reasonably be expected to yield. It’s a sort of magical thinking that plays well with a certain class of voter.

---

If I remember correctly, Elizabeth Warren had a proposal to do just that! I don't remember the specifics but it was a small amount the "rich" had to contribute to balance things out.

ETA: Here it is... https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

There are many many factors that conspire together to cause housing to be unaffordable.

In my local area:

- the permitting process is taking ~12 months, once a fully-completed application is submitted
- development plans are often challenged by local environmental organizations, causing delays of 0-24 months, since our local court system is backed up
- the height limit for buildings restricts you to basically 2-story construction
- development codes require that a substantial portion of each lot not be developed, because "nature"
- development costs for construction alone (not including site-development costs) are running $800 sq. ft. for modest-quality construction (no fancy-schmancy marble counters, no high-end appliances, no custom cabinetry).
- if you live in the village, you can connect to the sewer system, for a cost of $12k for the connection fee, and about $8k for the site-development work. If you live outside the sewer district, you are looking at $30k-$90k for your septic solution, depending on your terrain.

Pencil out what it costs you to build a 750 sq. ft. Levittown-style house....

Include then the rather substantial taxes we charge here on real estate transactions, to provide funding for land preservation, and affordable housing...

And also consider that it is essentially impossible to build a guest-cottage/mother-in-law-cottage/"accessory dwelling unit" here, because "we don't want sprawl"... The County has a lottery and hands out about 6 permits a year, if they remember to run the lottery, which some years they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

If I remember correctly, Elizabeth Warren had a proposal to do just that! I don't remember the specifics but it was a small amount the "rich" had to contribute to balance things out.

ETA: Here it is... https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

---

Apart from its questionable constitutionality, a federal wealth tax presents some interesting legal and technical problems for a new valuation bureaucracy. Pricing art collections, yachts and the unrealized gains on investment securities and real estate will occupy a generation of lawyers, accountants and assorted experts. Shifting assets to friendlier shores will also become a thriving industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Apart from its questionable constitutionality, a federal wealth tax presents some interesting legal and technical problems for a new valuation bureaucracy. Pricing art collections, yachts and the unrealized gains on investment securities and real estate will occupy a generation of lawyers, accountants and assorted experts. Shifting assets to friendlier shores will also become a thriving industry.

---

these countries have done away with their wealth tax after finding it unworkable:

“…Many developed countries have repealed these taxes in recent years, including Austria (1994); Denmark and Germany (1997); the Netherlands (2001); Finland, Iceland, and Luxembourg (2006); and Sweden (2007). [3] France was the last country to repeal its wealth tax in 2018…”

now only three European countries have a wealth tax and a couple of those tax only selected assets.


It’s not workable, but in the land of magical thinking, sure why not.

Has anyone crunched the numbers on what would happen if investment income was charged the same tax rate as ‘earned’ income and if that same investment income also had to pay social security and Medicare taxes? And if people who have high ‘earned’ income had to pay social security taxes on all their ‘earned’ income? Just those changes could probably go a long way towards solving the budget concerns that ‘balanced budget’ people worry about.

As someone who only pays social security taxes the first half of the year I’d rather pay the full year if it meant social security wouldn’t go broke at the same time I’m ready to start collecting. No I can’t live off social security but I also can’t live comfortably in retirement without it.

If I'm getting JD's agenda right, and possibly Donald's, the plan would be to close or severely restrict the border, deport millions of illegals or other immigrants, and fill the job vacuum with American citizens, which I can guess comes down to us white folk who generally won't do cement work, roofing, or landscaping. When employment is already near full. And the cost of goods and services won't be affected.