Sure, property taxes are paid on the house.
But unoccupied homes don't buy groceries and clothes, don't go to restaurants in the local economy.
So they do harm the economy, in the sense that they don't contribute as much to the economy as an occupied home.
Government intervention to forcibly lower property values or curb vacant properties is misguided and would likely diminish overall prosperity. Instead, efforts should concentrate on dismantling barriers like excessive zoning restrictions and streamlining building permits to encourage development and increase housing supply.
Viewing luxury or seaside properties remaining vacant as a problem ignores the unseen advantages these transactions provide. Sellers receive capital, presumably to be allocated more efficiently, while buyers secure a safe investment, indirectly contributing to the economy’s health. High housing prices signal a need for market adjustments, not for envy-driven policies that would only stifle growth and innovation. The sentiment of envy, while potentially motivating in small-scale societies, can lead to destructive policies in complex modern economies, detracting from the foundational principles that drive progress and prosperity.
You: "row upon row of vacant luxury properties represent significant capital inflow!"
Real world: vacant luxury houses can cause blight and other problems just as much as low-income housing.
Also, the value of the vacant property does not decrease because it is occupied. Unless your claim is that the local burden of people existing in a community is larger than the combination of their property and other contributions.
So an occupied property represents significant capital inflows AND enhances economic well-being on a per capita basis, AND does so moreso than the vacant, because there's the capital inflow AND the local spending.
Otherwise you end up with the absurdist trope of talking about public budgets as "homes and communities are worth more if no-one lives in them".
"Assume a spherical cow..." "Assume a row of oceanfront villas that have roads and sewage and utilities that require less maintenance because they're all vacant."
Phrasing it, as you repeatedly do, as "envy-driven" and "anti-free market" and libertarian ideology is sophistry. "You just don't get economics" - no, people understand that housing isn't a purely economic construct.
Per capita!
