how would put burden if costs are simply passed down to renters

Lower demand for the product globally. If their asset has a higher vacancy rate, raising rent all the time can't solve the problem.

However, tax rates give perverse incentives. What you'll probably get is a lot of commercial slumlords as repairs are seen to increase the value, thus the tax.

▲

VonTum 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they could raise rents by the amount they would've been taxed, they would have. I'm happy to see more incentives against buying up houses for literal rent seeking.

	▲	derektank a minute ago \| parent [-]
		>If they could raise rents by the amount they would've been taxed, they would have They can’t raise rents higher because they are in competition with other rental properties. In equilibrium, if all commercial properties have taxes raised on them, (a) the majority of the market will raise rents to cover the cost of the tax and (b) those rental units that are no longer financially sustainable at the higher rate will exit the market (e.g. sell the homes to an owner occupant or redevelop the property if allowed to by zoning). Some fraction of property owners might take a haircut on their capital returns in the short run (the housing market is fairly illiquid) but the market will return to equilibrium in time.

▲

throwaway-11-1 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Is the implication the only path is to design the economy around keeping landlords as happy as possible? Its similar to the fear of a wealth tax driving the rich to move, you can just say out loud who our true masters are.