331–340 of 497 posts
RTFA. (written by no-one, literally, no byline). TLDR: the elites want you to own nothing and like it. Anyone who doesn't see in this and COVID passports and only electronic money the clear beginning of an elite-driven fascism is beyond help at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owner occupation also has negative effects on economies. It limits mobility of labour. For example in many places you can't sell your property or it is exceedingly hard. Thus you are stuck with it. On other hand with renting mobility is simpler.
> in many places you can't sell your property This is very hard to understand. Why does this happen? Do you really own your property if you can't sell it? Or do you just have a permit to use it?
Property ownership is bad. Rent for life, dont leave inheritance to your children so they can rent for life too. All you need in life is clothing, entertainment, a bit of travel to distract you from your tiny living space, maybe a gadget or two and of course onsite work. Oh and praise from you manager to add meaning to your daily grind. Or so “they” say while “they” amass thousands of properties and massive fortunes…
The fundamental problem is linking "home as a place to live" and "home as an investment". The two things aren't compatible. If you want to buy a place to live so you don't have to work for a Lord, you want affordable housing. If you have a property which you want to be an investment, you want housing prices to baloon. Currently the latter is winning.
Property ownership is bad. Rent for life, dont leave inheritance to your children so they can rent for life too. All you need in life is clothing, entertainment, a bit of travel to distract you from your tiny living space, maybe a gadget or two and of course onsite work. Oh and praise from you manager to add meaning to your daily grind. Or so “they” say while “they” amass thousands of properties and massive fortunes…
The fundamental problem is linking "home as a place to live" and "home as an investment". The two things aren't compatible. If you want to buy a place to live so you don't have to work for a Lord, you want affordable housing. If you have a property which you want to be an investment, you want housing prices to baloon. Currently the latter is winning.
Most of my relatives have moved from owning their property to renting. The rents go higher and higher, leading people to rent worse and worse houses so they can aford to live. Those who still manage to own their home have a significant advantage in life. West's biggest economic-policy mistake isn't home ownership, but capitalistic use of housing. Give me a 100% guarantee that I will get afordable, good quality housin…
California found out how little this is tolerated when they tried to turn everyone's house into the government's piggy bank by continually raising property taxes. Their voters, ina rare show of almost total unity, capped property taxes to 1%.
It can only be, then, that not only will we not own housing, but its cost, supply, distribution and asignment to individuals will tightly controlled by the government.
At this point in this exercise either you understand that this is an attempt to get you to accept the implementation of totalitarianism or you're under the age of 15.
Earlier 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…
Huge difference is that wealthy/landlords buy properties with debt and operate with cash-flow while for them liability creates wealth. For working people properties on mortgage are just expense. https://www.singsaver.com.sg/blog/robert-kiyosaki-advice-on-...
Until you pay the mortgage. Then, your bigger expense, rent, disappear and you can start saving. Also, the thread of homelessness disappear from your life. That's something never will happen if you keep just renting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's reasonable to argue against (such a heavy emphasis) on home ownership; but it has to apply equally. Everyone striving to own a home is a consistent scenario, which has pros and cons. Social housing that's owned by nobody/everybody is a consistent scenario, which has pros and cons. Having some paying rent to others who own (or, even worse, have buy-to-let mortgages), is inherently unjust.
> inherently unjust. Why is it inherently unjust? The owner paid to have the building constructed. That took upfront capital. Asking the renter to pay for the use of this capital doesn't sound unjust to me. Is renting out a car you purchased inherently unjust?
Heh, I wasn't taking a position on renting versus ownership. I said there are pros and cons of both.
What is unjust is to advocate for renting, if that rent will go to an owner/landlord. After all, why should owners/landlords exist at all, if renting is apparently so good?
Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally you buy the land under the house as well, and this is the part of the pack that is appreciating.
Much of that appreciation should be taxed away as the landowner unfairly benefits from public spending elsewhere. If a government decides to invest public money in building a good new school in an area, it is not right that the landowners benefit from free appreciation while the renters are forced to pay more.
Property ownership is bad. Rent for life, dont leave inheritance to your children so they can rent for life too. All you need in life is clothing, entertainment, a bit of travel to distract you from your tiny living space, maybe a gadget or two and of course onsite work. Oh and praise from you manager to add meaning to your daily grind. Or so “they” say while “they” amass thousands of properties and massive fortunes…
The problem starts when people view their homes as financial investments instead of lifestyle security.