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 aquilon - Mar 10 28 comments
by epochepoque - Mar 7 11 comments
by Cyrille - Mar 8 1 comment
by afew - Mar 7 36 comments
by DoDo - Mar 10 15 comments
by ARGeezer - Mar 10 6 comments
by marco - Mar 3 43 comments
by maracatu - Feb 25 13 comments
by gmoke - Mar 10
by ARGeezer - Mar 106 comments
by aquilon - Mar 1028 comments
by DoDo - Mar 1015 comments
by Cyrille - Mar 81 comment
by epochepoque - Mar 711 comments
by afew - Mar 736 comments
by Oui - Mar 560 comments
by Oui - Mar 413 comments
by marco - Mar 343 comments
by vbo - Mar 124 comments
by Oui - Mar 11 comment
by Oui - Mar 13 comments
by Metatone - Feb 287 comments
by vbo - Feb 27110 comments
by gmoke - Feb 263 comments
by vbo - Feb 25102 comments
by maracatu - Feb 2513 comments
by Oui - Feb 2432 comments
by Oui - Feb 2214 comments