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

Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#151

Post by tonfreed »

varispeed wrote: post #147

The problem is that when you are from a poor background, you will have difficult time saving money for a new house if you chose a path of working hard, getting educated and then getting a good job. All because of progressive tax, that is being sold to public as tax on the rich, but reality is that it prevents people from escaping poverty and makes sure people don't grow beyond a certain point. The rich on the other h…

I've certainly noticed this. I'm not from a rich family, I was raised on welfare and I've managed to work my way into finally being able to buy my own three bedroom home in my 30s. Have a lot of friends who don't make anything near what I do, but middle class/rich parents that were able to give them a kick along the road with a house deposit telling me "oh, I'm surprised you lived in a tiny two bedroom apartment on your wage".

Knowing that I have to build my own retirement really makes me resent that so much of what I earn is going to the state to pay for what, a few shitty public art sculptures that no one likes, a crumbling public transport system that somehow has all the money in the world to pay for all sorts of diversity programs but not enough to actually deliver the services everyone thinks they should, and health department bureaucrats that are more interested in bogging healthcare providers down in paperwork than actually letting them tend to the sick.

It's all very tiring.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#152

Post by kortilla »

seoaeu wrote: post #41
aeternum wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land. A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value…

Land values are already captured in property taxes. There's certainly places where property taxes are too low and not doing enough to encourage better usage of the land, but that's straightforward to solve (though admittedly often not that easy politically)

Until property taxes stop taking into account the value of the structure, they are not equivalent at all.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#153

Post by kortilla »

andrepd wrote: post #137
refurb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You listed 3 occupations where opportunities aren’t that scarce and every town needs those people.

[citation needed]

Are you seriously asking for a citation that shows every city needs electricians and teachers?

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#154

Post by prostoalex »

don-code wrote: post #63

I didn't quite glean a thorough understanding of the model from the article. It sounds like it's: 1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent. 2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months. 3) Eventually, I own en…

The first half of the article lambasts the current conflicted interests of homeowners, who are obsessed about wealth-building through their property purchase and thus super-sensitive about increasing housing supply in their zip code. Boo wealth-minded howeowners!

But few paragraphs below under his proposal those who choose to participate are awarded “the opportunity to begin generating wealth immediately, from the minute they form their first household - a leap forward for both racial and generational equity”.

That’s a possibility, sure, but what about the property potentially losing value due to supply pressure or changing job market conditions? Aren’t the homeowners under his program as likely to develop hardcore NIMBYism as under any other financing scheme?

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#155

Post by bombcar »

nemo44x wrote: post #15

Renting is underrated but owning is nice too if you want to root. However I think a lot of renters or people that complain they can’t afford a house also forget about the costs of property tax and maintenance. Those are 2 costs that never end and don’t remain fixed (in most places) over time. For instance, anywhere reasonably commutable to NYC and close to a train line is going to probably have 10’s of thousands a ye…

And anyone who owns a house (especially an older one) knows that property taxes are relatively minor compared to maintenance costs (which are erratic and often unaccounted even by small landlords). They really add up.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#156

Post by HWR_14 »

varispeed wrote: post #147

The problem is that when you are from a poor background, you will have difficult time saving money for a new house if you chose a path of working hard, getting educated and then getting a good job. All because of progressive tax, that is being sold to public as tax on the rich, but reality is that it prevents people from escaping poverty and makes sure people don't grow beyond a certain point. The rich on the other h…

You're not arguing that progressive taxation is bad - you're arguing that taxes are not progressive enough. The point behind progressive taxation is that the rich can pay more (both practically they have more money and they miss the money less). If you are concerned, advocate to move the brackets up. 0% to 40k, 10% 40-80k, up to 50% 200k+ (these numbers were done to make my straight line math example easier, I don't know what the real numbers are.)

Meanwhile, without progressive taxation, in the US, your income taxes would average $12,075 your FICA (which is flat) would average another $8,581. With an average income of ~61,000 that means everyone would write a check for 33% of their income to the government. This means those making more than around $250,000 a year would pay less, and other people would pay a lot more.

I think you need to think about what the alternatives to progressive taxation look like.

(If you want to talk about treating capital gains as normal income, that's a completely different topic that would advantage poor people.)

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#157

Post by ookblah »

ahoy wrote: post #26
1996 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence is the cleanliness of public transportation, the derelict public bikes and other 2 wheel battery assisted devices, the derelict laptops in school that provide them to student... Maybe it's just a big anti communist plot, or maybe it's just human nature to not take care about things you do not own.

I live in a new york. Our subway is clean and regular, the bike share docks in my neighborhood are stocked and well-maintained. The busses, though sometimes crowded, run on time. Public transport works well when your city prioritizes it. I spent my youth living in places that don't and I literally cannot imagine going back.

what? what universe is this. the subway is probably one of the best by US standards, but that's not saying much...they've been kicking the can down the road for too long. remember 2 years ago when it was going thru a crisis due to the signal repairs? or sandy repairs on the L... don't even get me started on buses. the only thing i love about nyc subways is that they are 24/7 and the city is dense enough that it's convenient.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#158

Post by mastax »

vineyardmike wrote: post #90
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, and zoning regulations. Trying to mimic 1960s TV neighborhoods thru single use zoning regs has not served our country well.

I’m pretty sure a lot of people enjoy living in those neighborhoods. Surely if no one actually liked living in those neighborhoods it wouldn’t still be the ideal people strive for.

That's fine, people can like what they like. One of the best parts of my life was living in a duplex built in the 1930s close to downtown. It's hard and increasingly expensive to live in those around here because they have been illegal to build in most of the city for almost a century.

We do not have to ban single family homes. We do have to stop banning everything else.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#159

Post by lcpriest »

refurb wrote: post #128
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you can buy your dream house in the middle of nowhere for 200k but if you're a teacher, nurse or electrician job opportunities are likely scarce. People don't just live in cities for the opera.

You listed 3 occupations where opportunities aren’t that scarce and every town needs those people.

Every town, including big cities where the above situation would occur.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#160

Post by mgerdts »

varispeed wrote: post #147

The problem is that when you are from a poor background, you will have difficult time saving money for a new house if you chose a path of working hard, getting educated and then getting a good job. All because of progressive tax, that is being sold to public as tax on the rich, but reality is that it prevents people from escaping poverty and makes sure people don't grow beyond a certain point. The rich on the other h…

Where is $100k needed for a down payment on a house and income over $40k is taxed at 40%? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it.

US Federal tax brackets are at https://www.irs.com/articles/2020-federal-tax-rates-brackets.... Notice that the standard deduction of $12400 for a single filer and $24800 for married filers means that the first $12400 or $24800 is not taxed.

In contrast to that progressive tax, there are things like payroll tax (social security, medicare), sales tax, and all those taxes on phone and cable/internet bills that (proportionally) hit the poor much harder.

Post reply on HN