View Single Post
Old 8th October 2019, 04:39 PM   #136
Penultimate Amazing
Roboramma's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,186
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
For my specific comparisons on real estate, I was using specific houses that have been in place for 100+ years, basically in the Vancouver area. At this date, the houses are valued close to $0 and the purchase price is more about the land value. Interestingly, this even applies to brand new condos in the area. $2.5Million dollar condo is $300k of structure and $2.2 Million share of the $50Million land footprint, proportional to overall square footage.

That's why my neighbour's house was a good example. His grandfather bought it on a part time carpenter's salary. The house itself today borders on a teardown, but the land with a teardown on it is worth $3Million, which is well beyond the reach of a part time carpenter today.

Here's a house a few blocks away: [The house was a tear-down in 1983]

A list of some more nearby: [A Tour Of Vancouverís $3 Million Teardowns For Sale]

My mom's old house where she grew up is not for sale, so I can't post a link, but her dad bought it on a part time bartender's salary in 1939 (so, est = 30 hours per week, minimum wage + tips), and it's currently assessed at $3.1 Million. Well beyond a part time bartender's purchasing power today. Technically the house is identical, with the exception that it's 80years old.
Sorry, I did understand that issue as you presented it (at least I think I did and agree that it would be an issue with a wealth tax). You'd have people with low incomes who have "wealth" in the form of a house that they purchased at a low price and have been living in for a long time and is only at a high value because of rising real estate prices. Sure, they could sell the house now if the taxes were too onerous, but it seems pretty unfair that they should have to if we're trying to find a more equitable tax system. That issue that you raised seemed entirely reasonable to me.

The other issue that you raised was that in general the number of hours worked to pay for basic necessities has, on average, risen. That also seems like an important issue but it's one that's a little difficult to measure given that the nature of basic necessities has changed. I think food is probably the most straightforward, if we look at the price of produce or something. So I was wondering where you got that analysis and exactly what was being compared to what.
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top