[deleted]
Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
211–220 of 497 posts
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Owning your own home is, in my view, the first step towards financial freedom. I don't disagree with you, but owning your own home can also be a step towards financial ruin if you choose the wrong home. I know a few people who bought homes that they ended up losing huge amounts of money on and selling a few years later. Beyond that, it's also a commitment that comes with a huge opportunity cost. If I buy I house in…
> and selling a few years later That might be part of the problem? It's extremely rare to make a profit selling a home less than 5 years after you bought it even in good-but-not-insane markets. Basically unheard of in under 3 years in not-insane markets. If the market slips you're easily looking at 7-8 years to break even. The math of a six-figure, three-decade loan just doesn't support quick flips even just to break…
to what extent is this factoring in the cost of rent? If I barely broke even on a sale after 5 years without accounting for the savings of not paying 5 years rent I'd be pretty happy with that exchange tbh.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a minimum 5% deposit + 3-5% stamp duty Oh wow. I had to read the rest of your comment twice to understand that you were saying these seem high to you. They seemed really low to me. To put it into perspective, you need a 10-20% deposit in Belgium (depending on various factors) and there's a 6% tax for an old house (10% up until very recently) or 21% for a new house. It's basically impossible to buy a house if you're…
What's the reason for the strange difference between the tax on old and new houses?
Developers lobbying politicians. And because jobs! Is win-win[-everybody-else-loses].
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, that's not so far from what schools do.
Yup, COVID-19 shows me something that I have suspected all along - a LOT of parents are not comfortable to be with their OWN children. Because schools are closed, parents have to be with their children all the time A lot of them are really, really stressed out because of this. Which begs the question - why the fuck did you bother to have kids then? Children are blessings from heaven. If they can not see it that way,…
Human children, like most other social primates, have evolved to do best when raised by an extended family unit. In modern societies we have replaced the extended family (tribe) with daycare and schooling, and in some cases, communal areas such as parks.
Without the interaction of other adults and children, children get quickly bored and require much more attention than a couple let alone a single individual can provide.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#215Even from the title, the implication is that "home ownership" is a "policy" from the government rather than just a natural state of people acquiring and improving the land. It implies the government can simply revoke home ownership by a new policy. Property ownership and improvement isn't a privilege "given" to us by a benevolent government with their immaculate "policies" from time immemorial. People are the source…
The natural state is that people and other animals can only "own" land that they physically occupy and defend by force. The kind of property ownership where (you can make) other people stay out of your house without your own presence and without involving arming yourself is largely granted by governments and paid for in taxes.
Fortunately most of us are born in a time and place with governments having reasonable attitudes towards property ownership. (That includes myself, but not my parents.) But it's often hard for privileged people to see themselves as such.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually who you are born to is probably the number 1 driver of inequality. If you really wanted something more equitable, you would probably require that no children be raised by their parents and be turned over to a state run children's home at birth.
In practice, that's not so far from what schools do.
Except the rich kids go to private schools (called public schools in the UK) and everyone else goes to state schools.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#217So why people flock to those high priced cities? Past year has shown you can work remotely alright. Is it just the restaurants?
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#218I don't think this article makes a logical argument at all. It says house ownership is bad because it gives people a vested interest in constraining the supply of housing. That's true but that's not a problem. If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. I'm also not sure that reducing home ownership is a good idea - "let's make everyone poorer" doesn…
> If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. Yes, but constraining the supply is done through political means: planning laws, green belts, individual objections to developments, voting etc. All of those in theory are based on "one man one vote", so if you concentrate ownership of supply you drastically reduce the number of votes it gets. > the middl…
> Yes, but constraining the supply is done through political means: planning laws, green belts, individual objections to developments, voting etc. All of those in theory are based on "one man one vote", so if you concentrate ownership of supply you drastically reduce the number of votes it gets.
Genuinely curious: when has one-person-one-vote ever really constrained special interest groups, particularly in the US? Large corporations tend to get their way a lot during legislative sausage-making, and they have zero direct votes. Maybe votes actually don't matter that much?
> People in Singapore really love their flats. I think what people don't realise is that the space between the skyscrapers is well used with lots of playgrounds, parks and sports facilities. It isn't giving up your garden: it's swapping it for a much larger shared garden with facilities you could never dream of affording on your own.
Good for them! One question: could I add my own flooring to my flat for allergy purposes? If the neighbors are loud after my kids' bedtime, can I ask them to stop? Will that cause tension? Would I need to call the police if it escalated?
(I'd be much more interested in exporting Singapore's health care system to the US, which seems quite compatible with American cultural and economic constraints, than its housing policy, which seems entirely mismatched to housing constraints in 95% of America.)
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#219Homes logically really shouldn't be an appreciating asset. After build(including warranty fixes) they should be in best condition they ever will be(unless further invested). And then just wear down from there and require maintenance to even keep functioning. So after 10, 20 or 50 years it should cost less, not more. I wonder how will this look in let's say 100 or 200 years. That is after we have reached full urbaniza…
I think this is something that is often forgotten from the raw sales value numbers. House prices appreciate but at the same time significant money is invested into their maintenance and improvements. A house where no maintenance is done will probably depreciate in value as the building deteriorates.
It would be great to see an index of property prices deducting the cost of maintenance and improvements. This is a bit like share indexes where the added value of dividends is included.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the reason for the strange difference between the tax on old and new houses?
Developers lobbying politicians. And because jobs! Is win-win[-everybody-else-loses].
Shouldn't the new houses have lower tax then? Why would developers lobby for lower taxes on old houses?