Housing policy megathread

[Sheilbh]

And I'm pointing out a case where they do not.

How is that different than booze or fags?

And I'm critiquing a case where I believe the result is not fair or morally defensible.  What are we disputing?

I'd read your argument of two wolves one sheep as being that the process was illegitimate or unfair and morally indefensible, not that you just disagree with the result.

I've no problem with disagreeing with a result (believe me, 2024 is the first time the side I voted for won in over a decade of elections and referendums ).

[Admiral Yi]

How is that different than booze or fags?

The consumption of booze and fags creates health and behavioral consequences that must be born by society at large.  Therefore it is logical that consumers pick up the tab.  Sin taxes also diminish the behavior.

I'd read your argument of two wolves one sheep as being that the process was illegitimate or unfair and morally indefensible, not that you just disagree with the result.

I've no problem with disagreeing with a result (believe me, 2024 is the first time the side I voted for won in over a decade of elections and referendums ).

You're restating it as a bit of semantic issue, no?  The original maxim is democracy without guaranteed rights is  two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.  Does that mean the process (voting) is illegitimate, or that the outcome (mutton for lunch) is unfair and immoral?  I don't want to rewrite the constitution, I want people to internalize the principle that coercing a subset of the population to pay for a goody that you and one other wolf wants is immoral.

[Sheilbh]

The consumption of booze and fags creates health and behavioral consequences that must be born by society at large.  Therefore it is logical that consumers pick up the tab.  Sin taxes also diminish the behavior.

I think there are costs borne by society to do with housing: the cost of homelessness, needing to provide social housing, subsidised or fully met rent payable to (private) landlords.

I'm generally dubious on the effect of sin taxes. But practically tax isn't hypothecated. Taxing tobacco and alcohol is not put into a pot to pay for the social costs. If that was how it worked, I very much doubt if they're anywhere near high enough - and if that was the goal we should be taxing red meat, sugar and fat at a far higher rate.

But taxes in general aren't allocated to specific spending. So if we have x amount of spending commitments then we need to raise it and that's just a question of politics. I think I'd object to a tax as problematic in principle if it was based on some characteristic (gingers pay higher tax than brown-haired people) or it it was bill of attainder style creating of conditions that the only person paying tax is Mr A Yi. Beyond that it's fair game and the question should be what other consequences they have and if that outweighs the revenue it would bring in and, practically, if it's politically possible.

You're restating it as a bit of semantic issue, no?  The original maxim is democracy without guaranteed rights is  two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.  Does that mean the process (voting) is illegitimate, or that the outcome (mutton for lunch) is unfair and immoral? 

I think it's an argument against democracy in the long line of democracy as mob arguments. The issue isn't that voting is the process but that all those votes are equal. That's what I mean by the equity v equality thing:


And I do think there's a really important difference between "I think it is wrong for two v one to reach a decision that binds them" and "I think two v one reached the wrong decision". 

Although also practically on that maxim, to take it really seriously and look at the outcomes - what alternative is more fair and moral? Surely the only other alternatives are they all eat grass (two wolves starve), they eat one of the wolves (one wolf eaten and the sheep starves) or they all starve. Not to be purely utilitarian - but how are those fairer or more moral?

I don't want to rewrite the constitution, I want people to internalize the principle that coercing a subset of the population to pay for a goody that you and one other wolf wants is immoral.

I'm way out of my comfort zone talking about morality. But there's coercion all the way down. That's the nature of living in a society and being governed. Democracy is simply the fairest process for reaching those decisions.

[Admiral Yi]

Your verbosity kung fu is easily defeating my terseness kung fu.

[Valmy]

Yeah. All of human society is about controlling people. We just try to do it in as nice a way as possible.

[crazy canuck]

Has Yi recently become one of those tax is theft types or has he been one all along?

[Admiral Yi]

One point at I time is all I can manage.

Landlords and builders do not create social problems who's costs must be borne by others.  If I rent an apartment to a family I have not created homelessness.  I have contracted with a private party to our mutual benefit.  There is no other party to the transaction.

[Admiral Yi]

But taxes in general aren't allocated to specific spending. So if we have x amount of spending commitments then we need to raise it and that's just a question of politics. I think I'd object to a tax as problematic in principle if it was based on some characteristic (gingers pay higher tax than brown-haired people) or it it was bill of attainder style creating of conditions that the only person paying tax is Mr A Yi. Beyond that it's fair game and the question should be what other consequences they have and if that outweighs the revenue it would bring in and, practically, if it's politically possible.

But that's my point.  It would be wrong to tax only gingers to pay for something the rest of us want.  How is that different than indirectly taxing landlords for something the rest of us want?

[Admiral Yi]

Although also practically on that maxim, to take it really seriously and look at the outcomes - what alternative is more fair and moral? Surely the only other alternatives are they all eat grass (two wolves starve), they eat one of the wolves (one wolf eaten and the sheep starves) or they all starve. Not to be purely utilitarian - but how are those fairer or more moral?

In our concrete example I've already given you one alternative: tax the two wolves and one sheep equally to pay for the benefit.

[grumbler]

One point at I time is all I can manage.

Landlords and builders do not create social problems who's costs must be borne by others.  If I rent an apartment to a family I have not created homelessness.  I have contracted with a private party to our mutual benefit.  There is no other party to the transaction.

But there are externalities.  If you rent an apartment to a family you have created a contract that will have to be enforced at others' expense.  Your rented apartment creates additional demands on roads, sewers, police, firefighters, etc.  The public has a vested interest in your rental contract, and you rely on others to make it effective.

[HVC]

But taxes in general aren't allocated to specific spending. So if we have x amount of spending commitments then we need to raise it and that's just a question of politics. I think I'd object to a tax as problematic in principle if it was based on some characteristic (gingers pay higher tax than brown-haired people) or it it was bill of attainder style creating of conditions that the only person paying tax is Mr A Yi. Beyond that it's fair game and the question should be what other consequences they have and if that outweighs the revenue it would bring in and, practically, if it's politically possible.

But that's my point.  It would be wrong to tax only gingers to pay for something the rest of us want.  How is that different than indirectly taxing landlords for something the rest of us want?

But doesn't that tie back to the "Sin tax" example? Gingers are born ginger, landlords choose to be landlords. Ontario has rent control and plenty of landlords so obviously there's still a profit to it.

That being said, I'm not exactly sold on rent control because of the downsides mentioned previously.

[Admiral Yi]

But doesn't that tie back to the "Sin tax" example? Gingers are born ginger, landlords choose to be landlords. Ontario has rent control and plenty of landlords so obviously there's still a profit to it.

The justification for sin taxes is destructive or self destructive behavior, not the mere fact it is a choice.  Some people choose to dance.  We don't tax dancers even though it is a choice and not a condition one is born with.

[HVC]

And hiking rent causes a social ill as well. Lots of regulations are "unfair" in that they lower profit for the "greater good". Why shouldn't i be able to dump waste in a lake to maximize profits, what's a few dead fish?

[Admiral Yi]

And hiking rent causes a social ill as well. Lots of regulations are "unfair" in that they lower profit for the "greater good". Why shouldn't i be able to dump waste in a lake to maximize profits, what's a few dead fish?

Dumping waste in a lake is a destructive act.  It harms our health and diminishes the quality of our lives.  It is a negative externality.

Asking for more rent is morally no different than you asking for a raise.  It's two parties negotiating the terms of their mutual benefit.

[Valmy]

But we do have minimum wages yes?

Both wages and rents are vital to a prosperous society. The government should enact policies that keep wages high and rents low. To act like those things are only an interest to negotiating parties is ridiculous. I just don't think rent control is a good system of keeping rents low if it is at all possible to increase supply.