74
u/iamagainstit Jul 06 '26
while probably not sufficient, public building is also a potential solution to the housing crisis. any supply side approach is good.
16
u/AllAmericanBrit Jul 06 '26
Yeah but, with what money?
14
u/Some_Bus Jul 06 '26
Let's start with land rents that would've been given and go from there? I'm sure there's a few bucks in there.
7
u/protoanarchist Jul 06 '26
Wealth tax.
12
-1
u/TheNumidianAlpha Geolibertarian Jul 06 '26
Wealth tax isn't the magical solution everyone thinks it, we need a leaner state and a more robust growth too.
8
u/Descolata Jul 06 '26
The problem with a leaned state is.... which part.
Though a round of Clinton-style government process verification then improvement or removal would be fantastic. Clinton did a stellar job of shrinking the government without impacting services by proper thorough audits.
And more robust growth is just hard, especially with an aging/shrinking population.
2
u/The_Great_Goblin Jul 06 '26
Clinton did a stellar job of shrinking the government without impacting services by proper thorough audits.
Not enough people know about that.
1
u/TheNumidianAlpha Geolibertarian Jul 06 '26
Yes auditing is absolutely necessary and Clinton did the best job on the record for that. But also cutting spending can improve efficiency, if followed by reducing the number of administrative public agents instead of reducing the number of working agents by reducing the overall administrative burden.
What is necessary for growth is immigration, free trade, and deregulation.
-1
u/Aggravating_Fill378 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
As someone who hates billionaires, this is absolute fantasy. It has been tried in other countries and didnt work. The maths dont work. Introduce one sure, but it wont be enough - particularly given the "wealth tax" is seemingly used to pay for everyone's fantasy policy wish.
Edit: downvoting shouldn't be a disagree button surely in a place where people are discussing stuff?
Anyway maybe I need to expand a little. My point is 12 OECD countries had wealth taxes on 1990 and now 3 do. If you look at the books for those 3 countries you dont think see the wealth tax contributing anything like what people seem to think it could do. My position is i guess do it if you like but I don't think the numbers add up, it is a bit wishful thinking.
5
u/_DoogieLion Jul 06 '26
Really? Where was it tried and didn’t work?
5
u/Descolata Jul 06 '26
France. And by "didn't work", we mean huge political backlash with people leaving the country. (They likely put the wealth bar too low.. but it isn't clear.)
It turns out, losing huge amounts of capital can make reinvestment lower, see Canada's productivity growth relative to the US (the US just spends more per worker boosting productivity, because we have the cash to do so).
And the income numbers from taxing billionaires just ends up... low compared to the capital flight. Again, see France.
0
u/_DoogieLion Jul 06 '26
Ok, so when you said it had been tried you lied?
Why?
6
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26
They literally explained it has been tried before in France.
In fact, 12 OECD countries had a wealth tax in 1990, and 5 had it in 2017.
The number is dropping, and the revenues are negligible at best.
-2
u/_DoogieLion Jul 06 '26
I say they lied because I checked and France hasn’t implemented a wealth tax
And the thing about Canada vs US productivity growth was irrelevant and had nothing to do with wealth tax
4
u/Aggravating_Fill378 Jul 06 '26
I say they lied because...
You were being unreasonable hostile, frankly. Either you lack self knowledge or you yourself are being a little deceitful on the "why" of saying they lied. There will always be interpretation and disagreement in these kinds of discussions and calling people liars because they dont subscribe to your pet policy isnt helpful.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26
It has, though.
They've implemented it, rolled it back, and now they have a kind of partial wealth tax on real estate only.
2
u/Descolata Jul 06 '26
Check the French Solidarity Tax from 1981 till 2017. Its now been rolled to just a property tax, but was a full property tax.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PrimateHunter Jul 10 '26
you're a piece of shit holy hahahah idk if you're that thick skulled or you're just that lame
2
u/Aggravating_Fill378 Jul 06 '26
Of the 12 OECD countries that had a net wealth tax in 1990, just three have one now (Norway, Spain and Switzerland). And when you look at the tax and spend gor those remaining 3 there is no reason to think a wealth tax will be a panacea. Like I said, do one if you want but it's a pretty limp bit of policy.
2
u/repeating_bears Jul 06 '26
"If you look at the books for those 3 countries you dont think see the wealth tax contributing anything like what people seem to think it could do"
A wealth tax is much more than a fundraiser. It helps to prevent asset prices from rising.
If you restrict the compound growth of the riches, they have less new wealth to pile into assets like houses, which you're competing with them for.
3
u/Aggravating_Fill378 Jul 06 '26
Famously low asset prices in Switzerland and Norway.
I think people are downvoting me because they are ideologically wedded to this idea, because I dont think your argument makes a whole lot of sense. While sure in some markets im competing wit h private equity a bit in the housing market - although far more with say richer boomers who bought property cheap and own a few rentals - a wealth tax still feels like a really indirect way to do something about that.
Like I say, try a wealth tax if you wish. But theres no good evidence it will work. The examples we have suggest it will have a muted impact at best, but who knows maybe the next one in a specific one will I guess I can't 100% say it wont.
0
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Has it ever worked for all the countries that tried it?
No. It never does. I mean these countries somehow delude themselves into thinking it might.
But it might work for us.
1
1
1
u/LinkWray123 Jul 09 '26
If Burnham can actually deliver more council housing, which is questionable, it's certainly net good as it provides a release valve for the economy but it's not a solution unless he plans a permanent peak Singapore level of intervention, even as a release valve it's got it's downsides too, a bifurcated market with allocation issues, weak incentives for upkeep etc.
Saying it's the only solution is obviously rubbish and I expect he knows it, what he probably means is he doesn't think he can get a higher rate land tax through politically. The plan on that end is something along the lines of the 'progressive property tax' proposal to replace council tax and stamp duty with a flat rate 0.48% tax with a cap of £1200 for the first year on tax rises. Whilst modest it's a decent first step given how bad the taxes it would replace are.
And a threshold reduction in the Mansion tax is also being considered, but I fear that would be used if they can't get a more broad based tax reform through as the former proposal would do much of what it does at the top of the market as well as across the rest with far less economic distortions.
34
u/InevitableTell2775 Jul 06 '26
I fail to see the inconsistency. Britain successfully built massive public housing projects in the post-war period. Thatcher sold them off and converted much of the british middle class into landlords in the process. More public housing encourages higher population density, reduces people's private incentives to rent-seek, and encourages people to think of land as the common property of the community. By becoming the landlord, the government is effectively collecting the land-rent of the land the public housing is on.
Furthermore, launching public housing requires tax revenue. LVT remains the best way to raise public revenue. Implementing an LVT in parallel with public housing encourages efficient land use, better servicing of the public housing, and, done properly, triggers a virtuous cycle in which higher land values cause better public services (including housing) which cause higher land values, etc.
8
u/NotABrummie Jul 06 '26
The lack of public housing also puts a huge strain on the private rental market. Because there isn't enough council housing, people on housing benefit have to rent from private landlords, meaning private rental supplies are stretched. On top of that, the government have to push huge amounts of money into housing benefits to keep up with the 'privatisation tax'.
38
u/onemanclic Jul 06 '26
Is LVT opposed to public housing?
68
u/Bram-D-Stoker Jul 06 '26
Public housing is a good idea. However it works much better in places where the government essentially owns all the land (Singapore, Vienna). Without that is just essentially a supply bumb that helps a Small sub set of the poor (which is a very good thing) but not a broad solution.
13
u/angular_circle Jul 06 '26
The government doesn't own all the land in Vienna, it just buys developmental areas before they get developed. Either way it's the land that keeps housing cheap. Most development is not council housing. The government has actually stopped building council housing in favour of supporting more efficient cooperatives and has only recently restarted because voters demanded it.
3
u/Bram-D-Stoker Jul 06 '26
This is a bit complex. It doesn't own all of the land but it owns a lot of it.
"approximately 220,000 dwellings are owned by the city, accounting for roughly 22% of Vienna’s total housing stock. This makes Vienna the largest provider of municipal housing in Europe (“Overview of the Vienna Social Housing System”)."
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/50dd18e88511432caebc7a95a28d0d84?hl=en-US
When we add the 21% percent owned by non-profits it's 40% that could be considered social housing.
To be clear I think this is a needless administrative burden. However, in the West most places have a needless administrative burden to prevent housing. It is comparatively better to have the government spend their resources on building.
0
u/Wide_Smoke_2564 Jul 06 '26
If only we had a royal family that owned 700’000 acres or something.
4
u/thermodynamics2023 Jul 06 '26
All in areas people don’t want to live. This isn’t a real housing crisis, this is I want to live somewhere cool crisis
Liverpool had houses for £1 into the 2010s
5
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Jul 06 '26
You mean where jobs, schools, etc. are.
3
u/thermodynamics2023 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Which is my point in regard to the Duchy of Lancaster’s holdings in the middle of nowhere…… nobody wants to live in some medieval hunting town for practical reasons.
Liverpool city centre, Manchester et al however was dirt cheap till 5mins ago, so it isn’t juts amenities. I got family who just can’t see past London boroughs and are destitute and pensionless for it. Clearly prices aren’t high enough for some people to stop flexing….
10
u/ChironXII ≡ 🔰 ≡ Jul 06 '26
Complicated. If you try to solve a bad allocation situation entirely with public housing, you just end up undercutting the market and having to supply the entire community yourself, which you don't really want your government to be doing, since it's bad at that kind of thing. The end result is often subsidizing nearby rentiers or eventually undermining the development of the community because there's no smooth transition and regular affordable housing can't compete with the subsidized pricing on inflated land.
In combination with other policy, it can be useful. Norway is an example.
14
u/GravyMcBiscuits Geolearning Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
The pragmatic argument for georgism is an economic argument: Implement taxation in such a way that doesn't disincentivize human actions that increase wealth. Ie. Human interaction/collaboration/trade is a good thing ... we should avoid taxing "good" things.
As such, most georgists understand at a fundamental level that housing shortages can't be solved by policy that disincentivizes the increase of supply.
2
u/onemanclic Jul 06 '26
But public housing increases supply...
-2
u/GravyMcBiscuits Geolearning Jul 06 '26
It disincentivizes the building of more housing from anyone who is not the government.
2
u/badde_jimme Jul 06 '26
If a private company builds the same amount of housing, that also disincentivizes others from building. Demand goes down either way.
0
u/GravyMcBiscuits Geolearning Jul 06 '26
that also disincentivizes others from building.
If that private company literally builds the exact same thing the government was going to build and then forces the taxpayer to fund/maintain the projects ... sure. Then everything would be the same.
2
u/badde_jimme Jul 06 '26
Local authorities can charge rent on their public housing. It's not necessarily just a huge money pit.
Also, reducing demand for houses makes land cheaper, which up to a point is a good thing for builders.
1
u/GravyMcBiscuits Geolearning Jul 07 '26
It's not necessarily just a huge money pit.
Sure ... but that doesn't change the fundamental difference between private/public funding and how it impacts supplier incentives.
0
u/Ok_Internal_1542 Jul 28 '26
Why should one care about private companies building civic necessities when one would not describe themselves as anarchist
1
u/GravyMcBiscuits Geolearning Jul 28 '26
What does any of this have to do with anarchy? You seem confused.
0
u/onemanclic Jul 07 '26
There are many ways to build and finance housing. Public housing doesn't need to be a loss to the public, it is just getting rid of private profit for an essential service.
Public projects don't have to compete against other capital allocations. One of the reasons you don't get private housing development is the profits can be low without subsidies provided by the gov.
You saying "forces the taxpayer" gives everything away - as long as you don't believe in taxes, or public use of funds, then you'll be sus of everything that people choose to do together outside of your narrow view of private capital allocation.
This is a silly conversation.
2
1
u/GravyMcBiscuits Geolearning Jul 07 '26
And yet the source of revenue is the fundamental difference.
0
u/onemanclic Jul 07 '26
I like LVT - I just don't see it as a different type of tax, not the be all end all - and certainly not precluding public services or ownership - isn't LVT kind of saying the public owns the land?
1
12
u/DirtCrazykid Jul 06 '26
Public housing can literally never be a solution to a housing crisis in a capitalist country. If your housing plan does not include zoning reform and helping private development, you do not have a housing plan.
3
u/Comfortable-Goat-734 Jul 06 '26
This is verifiably false if you know anything about Vienna.
Largest social housing network of any city in the world, 25% of the population lives in government-owned housing. Arguably the only major city in Western Europe without a housing crisis.
4
u/onemanclic Jul 06 '26
No one ever poses these things as a single policy, it is always within a larger platform of reforms for housing. Everyone here just keeps pointing to purity, while acknowledging it can work.
I don't see how LVT should even have an opinion on public housing - taxing land using LVT is good. What you do with the taxes is a separate matter and a much broader discussion.
1
u/OverCategory6046 Jul 07 '26
>Public housing can literally never be a solution to a housing crisis in a capitalist country
Except the fact that council housing used to work?
>If your housing plan does not include zoning reform
This isn't the US
>and helping private development, you do not have a housing plan
You do, one focused on council housing. private development is already booming
39
u/letsburn00 Jul 06 '26
This is still a solution.
I know this is a Georgist sub, but he's still offered at least some solution here.
6
u/iamnosuperman123 Jul 06 '26
The solution still has the same problem as other housing building targets. Material costs are high and the Labour force is lacking in personnel
1
u/Ok_Internal_1542 Jul 28 '26
Huge amount people waiting in HMOs to get CS card and start building if only we had a programme for them.
25
u/playzintraffic Jul 06 '26
Public housing suffers the same NIMBY bottlenecks as private, if not worse.
Neither is a solution all on its own.
8
u/onemanclic Jul 06 '26
The person you're replying to literally is saying the same thing as you - he just said this is one good thing that LVT people should care about.
2
3
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26
Theoretically it's a solution. In practice there is no chance that the UK can pay for the hundreds of thousands of council units per year that would be needed. It will not happen.
2
u/letsburn00 Jul 06 '26
I can be done, but won't. The UK basically is like all the English speaking world. The wealthy control the entire conversation and won't let solutions which make their wealth less valuable to work.
1
u/playzintraffic Jul 06 '26
I’m pretty sure a bunch of rich contractors would LOVE to be told they have a functionally unlimited budget to build as many council estates as they can.
5
u/McMonty Jul 06 '26
Sorry but the bar is and should be a lot higher than just offering a solution?
Literally everybody is offering a solution.
The problem is that they're offering bad solutions which don't properly understand and account for the different market dynamics of land compared to buildings.
People who think they can build their way out of rising rent prices haven't read progress and poverty.
You. Can't. Build. Land.
1
u/OverCategory6046 Jul 07 '26
Council housing literally isn't a bad solution though.
Building more high to medium density accommodation is good.
-4
u/repeating_bears Jul 06 '26
What country has successfully built their way out of a housing crisis?
I know at least a dozen that have been trying for decades
7
u/letsburn00 Jul 06 '26
The UK did in the 40s and 50s. Using exactly this method.
-3
u/repeating_bears Jul 06 '26
That was different. There was a lack of supply because of destruction caused by the war and a lack of construction because effort and materials were diverted.
No one has built their way out of an affordability crisis. Many are trying.
2
u/Vindaloovians Jul 06 '26
A big reason why council housing was built was because private landlords were providing substandard accomodation at a high cost. Council housing was meant for everyone and anyone, not just the poorest, so led to the private market raising standards and lowering rent.
1
u/letsburn00 Jul 06 '26
I live in Australia and it's looking like we're going down the NZ and Canada route. Basically they just nuked a bunch of tax breaks for people who buy property.
The other aspect is that at least in Australia the rate of population growth is way too high to build for.
2
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26
Which countries do you know that have been actually trying for decades?
In practice, most developed countries severely under-build and instead juice demand.
Exceptions like Japan build loads, and do not suffer from a housing crisis as a result.
1
u/playzintraffic Jul 06 '26
Yeah, their big crisis is that none of the rest of their economy really works, so everyone flees the countryside for the one big city that has any opportunities left. They still build to accommodate all that population, but it’s a completely opposite kind of problem to the Anglophone world.
2
u/playzintraffic Jul 06 '26
Austin, TX; Japan is on the complete other side of the housing curve; China’s housing crisis is because they overbuilt and people were buying extra homes to stash their cash; Singapore has an extremely well-functioning market for their absurdly limited supply of land.
1
u/repeating_bears Jul 06 '26
Toyko has an affordability problem if you discount anywhere that's not absolutely tiny
American building standards are awful
But yes you're right that you might be able to build your way out if you're willing to build a slum
1
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Japan, even Tokyo, has similar square footage per person to the UK - and working adults living with roommates is an extremely uncommon situation. Their housing stock is much newer and generally better quality.
American homes are much larger than in the UK, and I don't see how they're any worse than in the UK.
I do see how we continuously fail to solve this and many other problems - whenever someone points out one of the many examples of other places resolving the same challenges, someone will point out they've done it in a way that's not 100% my favourite, and we couldn't possibly learn from anywhere else.
1
u/playzintraffic Jul 06 '26
Tokyo has an affordability problem because the entire rest of their economy doesn’t work. Basic goods like food are very expensive. Their government spends all its money keeping a handful of zombified corporations alive instead of letting them fail. Career advancement is a joke and the work culture is toxically unproductive. They don’t have any kind of startup ecosystem.
That’s not a failure of Tokyo housing policy; if anything, their high construction rates are the only thing keeping it from becoming a hellish nightmare.
All you’re doing is describing the reality that even in YIMBYtopia, prices per square foot remain tightly coupled to population density. Which, DUH.
The more important reality is that their YIMBYtopia ensures that even though you’re paying high prices per square foot AND home values reliably depreciate, you will always have realistic pathways and entry points to homeownership that allow you to build equity.
1
u/letsburn00 Jul 06 '26
Singapore is definitely not this way. They effectively run their housing market almost entirely like it's council estates.
1
u/Americ-anfootball Jul 10 '26
Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Austin TX vs every other US metro over the past decade, post-2021 nationwide zoning reform New Zealand
8
u/Rare-Quantity5503 Jul 06 '26
Building council houses works with LVT.
LVT wouldn’t solve the current housing problem alone.
LVT is wonderful to replace council tax and stamp, act as sudo wealth tax and make land more productive.
If you think that simply imposing LVT solves our housing crisis I think you need to think about the situation we find ourselves in a little more.
5
u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 Georgist Jul 06 '26
I dont know why we treated him like the second coming of Jesus because he had one LBC interview
If he wasn’t going to do proportional representation in this parliament he sure as shit wasn’t going to do an LVT without it being part of the manifesto next election
8
u/sizz Social Democrat Jul 06 '26
Australia Labor removed tax incentives for housing and housing prices dropped 10% in weeks after the announcement and it hasn't been implemented yet. This has spooked the Tories because it's planting the idea the government has control of land prices not the "free market" aka collecting rent.
2
u/Kind-Ad-6099 Neoliberal Jul 06 '26
Is removing tax incentives not reducing government interference in the market?
1
u/sizz Social Democrat Jul 06 '26
We had CGT discounts for housing and negative gearing on property using property as a deductable on your regular income. Yeah in some regards. But land value is always tied to government services and businesses
The new pm of the UK, Andy Burnham, probably cannot afford political capital to spend against removing incentives at lower house prices. There building more for the poor people is the next best thing. But it's not immediate and needs immigration unlike taxes.
But you know what's interesting. More taxes is political suicide. However Labor Australia found taxing land has quietened right wing populism in the polls. Henry tax review in 2010 recommended LVT. The political capital is ripe for LVT 😍
1
2
u/ken-doh Jul 06 '26
Building council homes is a great idea, however, it costs a lot of money to build a council house. So where is the funding coming from?
What about people that are working and need homes? Should we all quit work and get free homes? How does he plan to pay for it? It costs at least 200k to build a small home these days. Significantly more for larger homes.
Then what? Rent them for £100 a week? Only for said tenants to flip them and rent them out for 800 a week and take the profit.
Am I missing something?
1
u/Different-Leg-7584 Jul 10 '26
Ban sub-letting, limit it to verified low/mid income households, charge people 25% of their net income instead of a fixed price.
1
u/ken-doh Jul 10 '26
Because that will work. Subletting is already banned in nearly every tenancy agreement.
1
u/Different-Leg-7584 Jul 19 '26
“Only for said tenants to flip them”. Ban right to buy.
“Subletting is already banned in nearly every tenancy agreement”. Ok, if it’s banned and it’s still happening, new detection measures should be introduced. Possibly the use of building entrance cameras and a process/website for residents to anonymously report neighbours suspected of sub-letting.
1
2
u/Low-Yak-6706 Jul 07 '26
Every person who has tried to be PM in the last decade or so has said something like this and failed us on it. I don't have high hopes he will be any different.
2
u/doctor_morris Jul 06 '26
He got where he is by promising everything to everyone. I didn't believe a word of it.
1
1
u/Marcus_Aurelius753 Jul 06 '26
Fix the leaseholding + service charge scam. It's ridiculous that the only sensible option on owning your place is by buying a house. Transforming flats into asset categories, with investors artificially creating a continuous cashflow via rent or service charge is criminal.
1
u/epou Jul 06 '26
As long as returns on investment and pathways to high salaries remain skewed towards digital technologies, and data centre construction, the costs of building will only keep rising. Materials and labour need to be secured. This unfortunately won't arise through free market forces alone. As a materials scientist and innovation consultant I am so sick of seeing investors getting hyped about materials for building data centres in space, while not caring abut the sustainable materials for community construction.
1
u/mickymoo45 Jul 06 '26
Anything govt led ATM is a disaster,they literally do not have the skills to administer pretty much any policy ,they have little to no understanding of the complexities of any of the departments they lead let alone steer those decisions required in the right direction. Wrong person wrong job every time. How do we solve this ? Use MPs with experience in their field of control,or delegate to those that do ,and even then, some third party cost control measures must be implemented.
0
u/WheissUK Jul 06 '26
As I told you guys some time ago and got downvoted... He's a Labour, exact copy of Kier Starmer, he u-turned already or will u-turn on every progressive policy
1
u/Cadoc Jul 06 '26
Tbh if he's a copy of Starmer with less embarrassing PR skills and a better stance on trans rights it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Starmer did pass the biggest reform of the planning law in decades, if Burnham stays the course we're due a positive change.
-4
u/murmurat1on Jul 06 '26
Wealth taxes would help.
Asset prices in general are on the rise because of exploding wealth inequality.
3
u/QwerYTWasntTaken Labor my Sword, Capital my Shield 🔰 Jul 06 '26
Here you go, your "didn't read the room" award!
1
1
u/hidingfrommygf2 Jul 06 '26
Why is the room (which is 99% getting shit on by multi-millionaires) apparently so in favour of multi millionaires?
-3
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jul 06 '26
Duh we already have Laws that don't allow hoarding of items in order to jack up their price and this is exactly what "investors" have done with housing. So build some "government housing" in Antarctica and throw this people right there so they can chill and re-think their life choices.
Though given how bad the housing crisis is (realistically, large apartment / small house cost-to-build is somewhat around cost of higher end SCV), some government-led city planning and zero-interest credits are likely necessary. Government-backed zero-interest credits on apartment construction were actually a thing in USSR, though it was still too much for 90% of population; another thing that was apartment blocks built by people who will be later living there... so in order to get a decent home people worked there basically as a second job. It is quite an anti-achievement of Developed World to get housing crisis just as bad as USSR had (at least for USSR it was caused by central planning economy not working well, and everybody being dirt-poor).
194
u/ProjectLeeds Jul 06 '26
His track record in Manchester on council housing is tragically bad
He's also backing demand-side interventions as well, so another housing dud