Reply to Cities with No Children

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Cities with No Children"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults. [/quote]

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

[b]Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips.  They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC[/b]. [/quote]

I know this is the super trendy arguments among lefties -- that anything that increases supply is good, even if it's luxury condos for the rich. I find it so, so ironic, because this is basically a form of trickle-down economics. It's so funny that people on the left side of the political spectrum have found a form of trickle-down economics they can get behind. Paul Ryan would be very proud. [/quote]

1.   Lefties tend to oppose this. Its centrists, third way people, etc who mostly support this - though it gets support from some "progressives" and also from many libertarians.  IOW its not really about your favorite ideological war

2.  The idea that raising taxes high enough will lower govt revenues was never wrong. That is what supply side econ was.  The problem with it was determining exactly what tax level that effect comes in at.  Recent studies suggest its far higher than current marginal income tax rates

3. Trickle down was vague, in that it meant tax cuts on the rich/on capital could make others better off - but was unclear if this was due to more productivity by the rich, or to added demand.

Via demand, it is certainly true - the same can be achieved more directly with tax cuts to lower incomes, or increases in spending. And the GOP (and Paul Ryan) wanted such tax cuts even when there was no need for more demand, and they were trying to cut spending to reduce demand

Via productivity - probably true to some extent, but again, probably a limited effect until the tax rates are much higher than we have now.  And probably less effective than lowering taxes on lower accounts.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics