The $3100 is the result of rent-seeking, not of productive economic activity. SF landlords are leaches on the economic engine and wealth of the city, one of the rare things that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx would agree on.
> Also I doubt if raising taxes will result in anything more than them passing that cost on to the renters.
Only new buildings in SF pay substantial taxes, and only new buildings have rents that are close to their carrying costs. The landlords that are getting huge property tax subsidies due to Prop 13 are enjoying market rents that are far far above their carrying costs. This is why SF landlords are economic leaches, their profits come from a supply shortage not from productive activity.
If they coludn't afford to pay the tax, would rents have dropped? No, they would sell if they couldn't cover their costs with rent.
According to pretty much any economic model, the LVT can't be passed on to tenants. Having a hard time finding a concise, and to the point explanation of that, but maybe check out the answer here:
> Also I doubt if raising taxes will result in anything more than them passing that cost on to the renters.
Only new buildings in SF pay substantial taxes, and only new buildings have rents that are close to their carrying costs. The landlords that are getting huge property tax subsidies due to Prop 13 are enjoying market rents that are far far above their carrying costs. This is why SF landlords are economic leaches, their profits come from a supply shortage not from productive activity.
If they coludn't afford to pay the tax, would rents have dropped? No, they would sell if they couldn't cover their costs with rent.
According to pretty much any economic model, the LVT can't be passed on to tenants. Having a hard time finding a concise, and to the point explanation of that, but maybe check out the answer here:
https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/24352/why-cant...