this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Personal Finance
3802 readers
1 users here now
Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!
Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Landlords should pay 100% tax on their empty rentals.
You'll see how fast they will accept any and all new tenants, at a much lower price.
Which would also flood the market with housing, lowering the prices even more until renting becomes an actual beneficial option compared to buying and paying off a loan.
Real estate would also not be seen as an investment anymore.
100% on their rental value, which for many landlords is directly tied to massive loans they're underwater on. That's why they'd rather have unoccupied rentals with nominally high values than reduce the rental price to match the market and have their loans called in.
No, the rental value is the nominal price of the rental. This is extremely simple, a child could understand this. The landlords have gotten loans based on the assumed rental income, which is not $0.
Seriously? OK, you must not really have thought about this before. They are listing their properties for rent but nobody is renting them. They're listing those properties at the nominal rental value. So the tax would be on that nominal rental cost. This is like, babytown frolics level simple to connect the dots on even if you don't agree with it - understanding this should have clicked like two replies back.
nominal income
nominal income
nominal income
you're welcome to disagree but wasting this much time pretending to not understand is just childish, have a very nice day weirdo
Real estate should be considered an investment. It's one of the few things people invest in that is actually valuable. It's the speculative and labrynthine financial markets that are the problem in that regard.
The only reason mega-renters like Blackrock and Vanguard are able to monolithically buy property in the first place is because of dubious speculative earnings and government bailouts.
It's not surprising that home ownership was actually a lot higher 60 years ago.
But why should it be anything but a personal investment? I'm not seeing your point there. Isn't it better for everyone to decommodify housing?
What do mean? I don't see how what I said negates that.
Not really no. Commodfication is why things used to be cheap. High [insert item here] prices are directly related to money printing, corporate welfare and regulations that are designed to raise the barrier of entry for normal people.
Commodifying things makes them cheap? As opposed to decommodifying? That makes no sense
What is an example of decommodifying?
Nationalized healthcare
Making something unsuitable for investment so we preserve its primary function (houses being a home to a family and not an airbnb or an empty rental).
Why should it be an investment at all?
So that people can decouple their time from their earning power.
Why should a human necesssity be an investment?
Because there is more than enough for everyone.
There's more than enough housing that everyone can afford to own? Why are there homeless people then?
So, so many reasons...
At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.
At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc
Let's face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.
Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it's highly likely it won't be enforced properly.
Its interesting that you say drugs and mental illness are the problems. Isn't the fact that housing is commodified and costs money the HUGE problem? They can't afford it, is the reason they're homeless. The way you're making it look is that the problem is just them, which is an extremely dehumanizing starement, especially when you are ignoring the obvious answer that's its because some people are allowed to profit off of others need for shelter.
Are you a libertarian? The way you bring up printing money, cronyism, ill-conceived laws etc. sounds like you might be
I'm not a libertarian. Printing money, endless wars, corporate welfare, cronyism, ill-conceived laws and poor enforcement are very real MACRO (not individual) causes and you've not refuted them at all. These affect the price of EVERYTHING.
At the individual level homelessness can be fueled by all the things I mentioned. Some of those things are self inflicted and some are out of the control of the person. Either way there's nothing dehumanizing about stating facts.
I get the feeling in this thread that everyone thinks housing should be free which is... ridiculous... Nothing is free because everything has a cost. I agree, however, with the overall issue of corruption and exploitative wealth -- wealth that is often derived by anticompetitive, preferential treatment etc The average dude renting a house doesn't want to screw poor people they just want an alternative to a 401k so they can retire.
You're getting that feeling because people in this thread do think that housing should be decommodified. We don't think anyone should be able to profit off of human needs. Housing should be a right. Our needs shouldn't be exploited so some "average dude" can use us to fund the retirement we aren't going to get.
The reason you think this is ridiculous is because you're a
You think if you invest smart then you'll get to wear the boot, but there's a crisis in profitablity. They're going to be all out of boots, no matter what you do.
And when you say "there's more than enough housing for everyone" and then say there's homeless people because they're addicts and mentally ill, that's not just facts, its a pretty fucked up dehumanizing perspective
You've resorted to name-calling in a way that is not only innaccurate but indicative of how hard you've thought about your argument.
I have no illusions about "wearing the boot" in fact I've already talked about the actual injustice that's causing pricing issues across the board. (e.g. avoidable macroeconomic factors) You're not proposing some revolutionary idea. 'Everyone should have a house man..' Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You can disagree with me but don't bother unless you're going to explain yourself.
Now what? Do you plant a house seed and grow a house? You can demand whatever you want but that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Even in a world of minimal scarcity the one thing that will always be at a premium is people's time and they usually they don't hustle unless there is something in it for them especially if they are tacking on a roof in the middle of July.
The reality is this non-renter economy idea is just going to move the cost elsewhere and those with the means are going to abuse it in even worse ways that you haven't thought of yet.
We know that housing can be decommodified and that everyone can have a home because socialist nations have already done that.
The concept has been thought through. Theres a nearly 200 year long intellectual tradition of thinking this through. You're just really into the idea of exploiting other people because you and people like you feel entitled to passive income.
People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.
What should people invest in then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc
Literally any other type of business.
People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.
You've just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.
Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?
If the "safest most attainable way" to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn't not worth it.
And it arguably isn't the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system's failures.
To use it for a business or enjoyment. I'm not sure where you are going with this.
The average person is not a landlord