Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

antimoneylaunderinglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 174 posts

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#51

Post by sanswork »

barrkel wrote: post #46
sanswork wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in 2 of the affected cities. When I was making less I had housemates to bring the rental costs down(Sydney) or lived outside the city and commuted(Toronto). Both would work for either city and allow you to not have to spend 30-50% of your income on rent.

Don't underestimate the costs of living outside a city and commuting. Not just the opportunity cost of lack of socializing, but commuting measurably decreases people's happiness, quite apart from how much time it takes. It's also not morally wrong to pay more for accommodation that suits your lifestyle better.

I've not said it is morally wrong. Though I think it is wrong to complain about the costs of high demand areas if you're not willing to take actions to decrease those costs.

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#52

Post by sanswork »

barrkel wrote: post #44
sanswork wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your rent is 30-50% of your income you are living in too expensive of an area for your means or need more housemates.

30 to 50% of a high take-home actually leaves you with quite a lot of disposable income. 30 to 50% of a low take-home is probably unsustainable. Not all costs are directly proportional to housing costs in a housing bubble. Particularly for younger people, it makes a lot of sense to suffer the higher proportion on rent. Quality of life is much higher living centrally, and income will probably grow, while rents are usu…

I gave an option for lowering cost and living centrally too. Housemates.

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#53

Post by fratlas »

sanswork wrote: post #31
fratlas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when rent for young people is around one third to one half of their income (I would know, it's about 1/3 of mine). Would take me about 6-8 years to save for a deposit on an older apartment.

If your rent is 30-50% of your income you are living in too expensive of an area for your means or need more housemates.

I live with two other housemates, in one of the cheaper, older apartments in the area. I chose it because it's only one bus away from my work/uni, where a cheaper location (much further away) was only $30 a week cheaper, and saving 2 hours a day of commuting is worth $6 a day to me. I see other commenters saying 30-50% isn't that bad, but that's not taking Sydney's high cost of living into account.

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#54

Post by ec109685 »

aianus wrote: post #40
sanswork wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon for it to be better financially to always rent and just invest the difference between rent and mortgage+maintenance+taxes. With interest first mortgages as they are it is generally a long time before you earn any equity at all.

This. I did the math when I rented an apartment in downtown Toronto and the rent was less than mortgage interest + condo fees + property tax + maintenance.

Except if the value of the real estate goes up.

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#55

Post by jussij »

a_bonobo wrote: post #13

This is a relatively big problem in Australia - there has been talk of a housing bubble in Australia for the last few years which in part has been propped up by Chinese grey money buying whole apartment buildings for investment, which drives up prices (they can just dictate prices) and keeps young locals out [1]. I cannot afford a house and I have a well-paying job. The government looks the other way since building i…

In the long term, the bubble is going to pop and then you have dead cities with empty high rises falling apart (but then again, people have been saying for at least 10 years that the bubble is going to pop any day now and it's still inflating)

The reason that bubble has not yet popped is because over the last 10 years Oz has generally seen below average GDP growth and year on year deflation, not unlike the rest of the world.

To fight those conditions the central bank (the R.B.A.) has been forced to cut interest rates (again not unlike the rest of the world).

Those record low interest rates makes money cheap and property attractive.

But going forward, should Oz see any level of real GDP growth, interest rates will have to rise and when that happens that will be the pin that pops the housing bubble.

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#56

Post by a_bonobo »

kobayashi wrote: post #43
a13xb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like to rag on Chinese investors, but I think the main reasons are insane tax breaks and limited supply.

Which tax breaks?

Probably negative gearing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_property_bubble#Inf...

Edit, better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing#Australia

>Interest on an investment loan for an income producing purpose is fully deductible if the income falls short of the interest payable. The shortfall can be deducted for tax purposes from income from other sources, such as the wage or salary income of the investor.

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#57

Post by aianus »

ec109685 wrote: post #54
aianus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I did the math when I rented an apartment in downtown Toronto and the rent was less than mortgage interest + condo fees + property tax + maintenance.

Except if the value of the real estate goes up.

Ah but my equities-heavy roboadvisor portfolio has gone up way more than the landlord's apartment...

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#58

Post by aorloff »

jmspring wrote: post #37
jseliger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese grey money buying whole apartment buildings for investment, which drives up prices The nice thing about housing is that one can easily build a lot more of it, and it makes a great de facto investment: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/19/exporting_hou... . The only thing stopping most municipalities from pursuing this reasonable outcome is politics and resistance from NIMBY incumbent landowners.

No. Those policies are in place because planning makes sense. Not everywhere should be tear down and build up in all conditions. How about the French quarter of New Orleans or historic districts of other cities? This argument always shows up here and is idealistic bs.

Places that have rapidly soaring housing costs need to get rid of / streamline the permitting process a la trailer bill 707 in CA (which the special interests killed - largely unions because they use the local permitting process to exact concessions). But either we need to streamline the permitting process, or revitalize a serious transit policy (not the BS high-speed rail, but a regional transit solution that makes it feasible to live in Stockton and work in SF).

Re: $2T in Proceeds of Corruption Removed from China and Taken to US, AUS, CAN, NL

#59

Post by jjawssd »

jmspring wrote: post #37
jseliger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese grey money buying whole apartment buildings for investment, which drives up prices The nice thing about housing is that one can easily build a lot more of it, and it makes a great de facto investment: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/19/exporting_hou... . The only thing stopping most municipalities from pursuing this reasonable outcome is politics and resistance from NIMBY incumbent landowners.

No. Those policies are in place because planning makes sense. Not everywhere should be tear down and build up in all conditions. How about the French quarter of New Orleans or historic districts of other cities? This argument always shows up here and is idealistic bs.

I don't understand
Post reply on HN