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

Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

nltimes.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 598 posts

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#241

Post by TeMPOraL »

988747 wrote: post #187
jhgb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They buy them and then rent out, thus increasing the supply. That doesn't increase supply. I'm really not sure how middlemen skimming money could increase supply since that should push the supply curve to the left. > If the house gets bought by a family, that family moves in, so 3 out of 5 spots are now occupied, leaving only 2 available for rent. And the family moved in from somewhere else, leaving you with three…

> And the family moved in from somewhere else, leaving you with three spots in that some other place plus two spots in the new place, so you have 5 places for students regardless. Not sure why you think this changes something. Because that family might have moved from out of town, and students can't move to their old place that is too far from the university? EDIT: I'm not sure that building more dorms is a good idea…

> During my time in college there was a clear division: those who prioritized studying lived in the quiet rental apartments, those who prioritized socializing lived in the dorms :)

And I wonder who ended up better off :).

The longer I live, the more I realize that I made a mistake during my university years. I focused on learning where I should've been partying - because as it turns out, knowledge is the easy part. The hard part - and the important part - is building a network of friends and connections, which happens at parties, not in quiet rental apartments.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#242

Post by spockz »

ForHackernews wrote: post #130
makomk wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the British press and all the wealthy people with second homes still have Brexit as a scapegoat for why cafes and shops in tourist destinations can't find staff. Never mind the fact that AirBNB and second homes have pushed up house prices and rents to the point that it's impossible to live there on the kind of pay those jobs have, according to the media it's all the fault of Brexit driving away the for…

That's a self-correcting problem, isn't it? Either those cafes and shops will raise prices and pay their staff more, or they'll close down. I've never understood why we're supposed to feel bad for "small business owners" who won't find staff when paying peanuts for their crappy jobs.

The point is that before there existed an ecosystem. That “peanuts” is what the business owner was able to afford to pay which was enough for the employees to make a somewhat decent living. Now that isn’t possible anymore. The objection is to the change/disruption of a local ecosystem by outsiders.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#243

Post by throwaway2048 »

csomar wrote: post #46
anothernewdude wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. Let's fix a housing crisis by completely breaking up laws, society and order.

I'm not sure society is going to break down if a few empty rich investor properties actually get used.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#245

Post by eurasiantiger »

dan-robertson wrote: post #182
itsdsmurrell wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is how much the bank earns off the interest it charges you throughout your life while it had to do what?... create new money from nothing into the money supply with special permissions given to it by the government. This is why housing is so expensive to begin with. This bullshit needs to stop.

Banks don’t get to create money. Quantitive Easing isn’t something banks can call up on demand and it isn’t banks getting loads of free money. Instead they sell certain slightly risky assets to the government at a slightly higher price than they would be worth without QE. This small price difference is the free money but the bigger difference is that the banks have more liquid cash to use for e.g. making loans. I thi…

> Banks don’t get to create money

Literally every loan a bank gives out is mostly made up on the spot, everywhere in the world.

In some countries, banks are subject to reserve requirements — typically from fractions of a percent to some percents of their liabilities to depositors. Basically: banks need to cover the savings of people.

In the UK (and many other countries), this is not the case; banks are not required to have cash on hand in relation to their liabilities to depositors.

Instead, they are subject to capital requirements, which means they need to have sufficient equities (cash, securities, other financial instruments) with sufficient liquidity in relation to their risk-weighted assets (credit and loans). In effect: banks need to cover the investments of the investors.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#246

Post by iso1210 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #236
iso1210 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even with HTB which is a terrible policy the people who can afford to buy are already in the top percentiles What a load of rubbish. HTB really helped us when buying by giving 5 years of interest free We bought a 240k house with a 12k deposit and 48k htb. Moving costs etc meant we had to find about £17k, which we borrowed. Assuming you do that now, HTB means paying £647 a month on the mortgage and £330 a month on r…

> you'd be crazy to live in London when there are far more reasonable places to live just half an hour out of a one 1 station and far far less cost How much cheaper would it be? I've just moved to London (living in zone 2, going a bit further didn't strike me as much cheaper).

Depends how often you need to be in London,

2 bed terrace, £270k https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/111488087

40 minutes to Fenchurch Street (little less for Docklands), £65 per week//£2600 per year.

2 bed 230k https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/112846073

22 minutes to St Pancras, £127 per week//5k per year

If you can get a 2 bed house that close to central London at those prices that's great.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#247

Post by chrisseaton »

Griffinsauce wrote: post #185

This is really necessary. I'm a senior engineer, my wife is a neurologist, we are currently not able to afford a pretty normal house in the city. Even if we did, buying now is a enormous waste of money. The market has been bad for years and it's absolutely out of control now.

> I'm a senior engineer, my wife is a neurologist, we are currently not able to afford a pretty normal house in the city.

I don’t understand why people think having a certain job means it’s more of a travesty that they can’t get a house.

Everyone should be able to get a house. Whatever your jobs are is irrelevant.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#248

Post by thriftwy »

neutronicus wrote: post #168
zeepthee wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it encourage urban sprawling?

Aspiring single-family home dwellers will go farther afield in search of less-taxed land

Maybe they will go to smaller metropolitan area instead?

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#249

Post by cutler »

globular-toast wrote: post #157
mejutoco wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was looking for data for inequality per country ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_... ). What location and timeline are you thinking of for now being less inequal? Do you have a data source I could look into? Cheers Edit: grammar

Data of current inequality isn't very useful. I don't have any data, but I wasn't the one claiming things were more extreme now than they have been in the past. If I look at the UK I see even the poorest people have shelter, food and free access to healthcare. In the past the poorest people were literally starving and in very poor health while the richest lived in huge manor houses that would make even a billionaire…

There are plenty of people starving in the UK. Food banks can't keep up with demand. There are also the "new homeless" who once had stable jobs but are now part of the gig economy. Some are out on the street but most are couch surfing somewhere.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#250

Post by CydeWeys »

rtpg wrote: post #180
csomar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Let's fix a housing crisis by completely breaking up laws, society and order.

Let’s fix a housing crisis by having houses be used. I doubt this is the magical unique problem everyone claims it is, but “oh no think of people’s investment” when people are sleeping outside is valuing property over people.

Housing vacancy is essentially a red herring when it comes to the housing crisis. Vacancy rates are still low overall, and reducing vacant housing would barely make a dent in the issue. The real issue is that there isn't enough supply for a given level of demand (i.e. how many people there are who do or would like to live there). Cities have added way more people than they've added housing units over the past several decades.
Post reply on HN