For real though, is there any realm of policy in modern history that’s more regressive than housing? Where else do we actually have the opposite of luxury taxes, and make it easiest to build the most luxury product (detached mansions), and next to impossible to build the economy housing? - ThreadSky

amoralorealis.bsky.social • 5 days ago

For real though, is there any realm of policy in modern history that’s more regressive than housing?

Where else do we actually have the opposite of luxury taxes, and make it easiest to build the most luxury product (detached mansions), and next to impossible to build the economy housing?

Comments

graue.bsky.social•5 days ago

Ground transportation. We cater to the most luxury product: private cars, and make it next to impossible to ride bikes, walk, or take transit.

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

Fair, very good point!

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

And, similarly to housing, it’s a subsidy to the most carbon-intensive product as well.

dtxtransitposts.bsky.social•5 days ago

Cars.

Now cars have the additional complexity of being inherently regressive (in Europe poor ppl spend a smaller % of their budget on transportation bc they have functional transit. For the US they spend far more %), but once you get over that CAFE standards are ALSO very regressive.

ryukyu-hsr.bsky.social•5 days ago

One thing that's very similar is the cap on the number of doctors instituted by many countries (maybe Canada too?). Keeps doctor wages sky high while restricting access to health care, especially for newcomers and those who can least afford it.

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

It’s like if we forced airlines to reserve at least 80% of their plane space for business and first class. And if they wanted to add economy seats they had to pay extra taxes

geofflister.ca•4 days ago

It’s funny because we actually used to heavily regulate airline prices and offerings, up until the 70’s, and im seeing a quote for a coach seat NYC to London would cost $210 in 1965 (off season), or like $2,100 now. Maybe $350 today, I see a flight for 150 on a discount.

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

AND even if they paid extra, some council forced each plane to go through discretionary approvals and a public hearing, where they will be accused of luxury economy seats and low quality simultaneously

lyndontucker.bsky.social•5 days ago

I had someone tell me its more inclusive to have SFHs on the coast than "millionaire condos"

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

Tell them to show you that this isn’t the case in their city.

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

Every rare (and thus expensive) economy seat then is held up as proof that capitalism isn’t working, and advocates who point out that the rules are broken and regressive, will be called shills for airline companies

pastel-hermit.bsky.social•5 days ago

This in particular drives me nuts. You'd suggest letting airlines add more seats, only to have someone point out that airlines would have more customers that way, so actually we're sticking it to Big Airline by... uh... making everything business class

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

How dare we suggest that we allow more economy housing to be built. And absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it’ll bring down prices of economy housing if there’s more of it

amoralorealis.bsky.social•5 days ago

Nevermind that the accusations are almost invariably coming from those who either fly business/first class, or stand to inherit a plane

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply