41–50 of 598 posts
So investors buy the homes then rent them out? What’s the problem? In some asian markets investors buy homes then sit on them unused for years. That’s a problem.
If that means middle income families or starters are not able to buy those houses, and the investors driving the prices up. Then yes, it’s a problem.
There is suburbs for that.
[0] In 1879, a man asked "How come all this new economic development and industrialized technology hasn't eliminated poverty and oppression?" That man was Henry George, his answer came in the form of a book called Progress & Poverty, and this is a review of that book - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
[1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/01/16/home-ownership-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> investors won't be allowed to buy cheap and medium-priced homes and rent them out So, who will be renting cheap and medium-priced homes? There are already extremely severe shortages as exemplified by students camping in tents.
People living in them? That's how it mostly works elsewhere. Also, it is not customary in the Netherlands for students to live in dorms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that means middle income families or starters are not able to buy those houses, and the investors driving the prices up. Then yes, it’s a problem.
Why should middle income families be able to buy property in some of the wealthiest and most expensive cities in the world? There is suburbs for that.
Amen to this. Two case studies from the UK I've been thinking about recently: 1) Visiting London and spending time in South Kensington - walking back to hotel at night, only about 30% of houses had any lights on. Suggestion is the others are effectively uninhabited, and a search on RightMove shows properties sell for £20-£30m for a 4/5 bed. This isn't normal Londoners, it's outside investment. 2) Cornwall, where I li…
Those empty homes should be torn down or squatted in. I imagine an organisation like a squatters union could be set up to manage protection for them.
There is a better way - raise the real rate. Cheap loans along with endless printing has basically made fiat useless as a medium to store value, the only reason fiat exists now is as a medium to exchange goods/services. Here the Fed has been buying over 100B of mortgage based securities a month. This got to stop. For all the talks about Wealth inequality, I don’t understand how politicians fail to understand this bas…
This is cart before horse stuff. As noticed by other commenters some people need to rent. I am blaming 'quantitative easing'. If the central bank buys a whole lot of assets where do other investors go?
I believe the Netherlands used to allow full tax write-off of the mortgage interest (dunno if they still do). That certainly is bound to heat up the market.
why not banning foreign buyers first. then corporations. homes should be for the people. it should be cheaper to acquire a home u live in than an home u buy to speculate/rent. And the difference should be way higher than a few % tax more
At least in Norway your primary home is exempt from property tax. I guess that's one reason why we have a home ownership rate of over 80%.
So investors buy the homes then rent them out? What’s the problem? In some asian markets investors buy homes then sit on them unused for years. That’s a problem.