Hacker News

points by justindz 1 day ago | 0 comments

My question was about the impact to state revenues and associated services. Are you suggesting that because it doesn't apply to "investment" homes, the actual impact to state coffers will be minimal?

Not being nitty, just didn't follow how your point connected and wanted to make sure I understood it.

[–] Den_VR 1 day ago

I suppose my point is mainly to look at the equation from the other side. Sure, “the market” might be more efficient if people without sufficient income, have to leave their houses that are high valued and that allows for more affluent people to live in those homes and pay more taxes.

But we might say it does not feel very humane

[–] Timon3 1 day ago

I didn't read GP as expressing any explicit judgement - it's a simple question of the political reality, no matter what position you take. If the state takes in fewer taxes, the shortfall must be balanced by some combination of:

- increases in other taxes/other income sources

- decreases in services

- public debt

As someone who shares your view that housing shouldn't be purely market-driven, IMO it's especially important to consider the other side of the equation, because some people invest a lot of time, effort and money to prevent the first option.

One "obvious" income source would be to hire more tax collectors and let them focus on the largest conglomerates, but not like that's ever gonna happen.

[–] hnburnsy 1 day ago

Doesn't affect the state just localaties like counties and cities.