The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
It is also completely tangential to my point, which is that you cannot both have a high fraction of owner-occupiers and responsible real estate taxation, because that is unstable against tax-cut populists: The tax-cut populist gets to enjoy the bubble, the responsible party that comes after it gets to clean up the mess. That only works if either (a) the voters understand that the pain they suffer during the cleanup is actually caused by the irresponsible tax-cutters, not the responsible adults who raise real estate taxes. Or (b) the fraction of owner-occupiers (and their dependents) is sufficiently small that you can fuck them over with relative electoral impunity.
I would not bet a lot of money on (a), let alone an election campaign.
Of course, you could get creative and automatically index mortgage principals to some real estate index. That would prevent homeowners from going underwater when the market tanks (and reduce their ability to play the leverage game). But then you'll have your banks running equity risk, and I am not completely sanguine about the implications of that for financial stability.
Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.
So I wouldn't see controlled equity risk as a problem, because any scheme that controls risk is also going to lower volatility. It becomes hugely less likely that the entire economy will implode because of a bubble, and the real risk of going underwater becomes much lower for everyone.
As for the political argument - you can't immediately fix a democratic deficit by moving money around. You need to have decent representation first - as in policy influence at every level, and not just token show-voting every few years - and then you can start on the rest.
Unfortunately with the current system, even if there's an outbreak of something approaching bottom-up democracy, it's soon co-opted into the usual economic tyranny, making power redistribution politically impossible.
In that scheme you'd get controlled equity risk vs uncontrolled explosive equity risk
You also get a huge incentive for the financial sector to encourage bubbles (albeit a smaller one for homeowners to participate in them).
As for the political argument - you can't immediately fix a democratic deficit by moving money around.
But my point is that high property taxes requires that property holders are not a politically effective constituency.
In other words, they either have to be a small constituency, or they have to be labouring under a democratic deficit that prevents a large constituency from materially affecting policy.
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 21 112 comments
by afew - Jul 21 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 25 3 comments
by Migeru - Jul 24 2 comments
by Oui - Jul 24 1 comment
by gmoke - Jul 21 5 comments
by Migeru - Jul 24 55 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 16 61 comments
by Oui - Jul 25
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 253 comments
by Oui - Jul 241 comment
by Migeru - Jul 242 comments
by Migeru - Jul 2455 comments
by Oui - Jul 236 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 21112 comments
by gmoke - Jul 215 comments
by afew - Jul 2116 comments
by Oui - Jul 194 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1661 comments
by Oui - Jul 623 comments
by Oui - Jul 41 comment
by afew - Jul 248 comments
by gmoke - Jul 15 comments
by Oui - Jul 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 3055 comments
by gmoke - Jun 2813 comments
by DoDo - Jun 236 comments