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 DoDo - Dec 18 1 comment
by Democrats Ramshield - Dec 16 4 comments
by ARGeezer - Dec 15 62 comments
by gmoke - Dec 2 8 comments
by das monde - Dec 14 17 comments
by LEP - Dec 9 26 comments
by gmoke - Dec 17
by ARGeezer - Dec 8 16 comments
by Democrats Ramshield - Dec 20
by DoDo - Dec 181 comment
by gmoke - Dec 17
by ReGiNuss - Dec 171 comment
by Democrats Ramshield - Dec 164 comments
by ARGeezer - Dec 1562 comments
by das monde - Dec 1417 comments
by LEP - Dec 926 comments
by ARGeezer - Dec 816 comments
by gmoke - Dec 72 comments
by rz - Dec 415 comments
by gmoke - Dec 28 comments
by A swedish kind of death - Dec 233 comments
by rz - Nov 3071 comments
by Migeru - Nov 2959 comments
by ARGeezer - Nov 242 comments
by Cyrille - Nov 247 comments
by gmoke - Nov 1916 comments