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

401–410 of 598 posts

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

#401

Post by R0b0t1 »

pydry wrote: post #349
R0b0t1 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On paper, yes, but it'll just get passed on to the renter.

Renters would pay the same rents they do now. For some landlords that would cover their tax bill. Others not so much. It would precipitate a collapse in property values, but not a rise in rents.

I must sincerely ask you if you read my original comment and the person I am replying to:

As population density increases, desirability increases, and people may try investing with the goal of renting, which with an LVT will more sharply decrease the desirability of population density.

An LVT can incentivize sprawl because all else equal the LVT would ultimately be passed on to renters.

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

#402

Post by imtringued »

gruez wrote: post #391
kingludite wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get how people can keep saying this. Is it that people are told banks lend out money from depositors in school? Anyway, if you sign a contract that says you shall pay me every month for 30 years OR ELSE I get to sell your house (and whatever else you own, seize your income etc) then the document with your signature IS the value created and I can sell that document for what it is worth. So the bank creates mon…

>>Charging 0% interest means the bank is losing money. > I don't get how people can keep saying this. Is it that people are told banks lend out money from depositors in school? They don't? Where is the money from? Due to complicated reasons (ie. bundling mortgages into mortgage backed securities and selling them), it might not be the case that the mortgage issued by Bank A is funded by Bank A's depositors, but it is…

From a technical perspective you need deposits but from a practical perspective deposits never leave the system except in the case of a bank run where everyone tries to withdraw their money. If we assume a cashless system then banks can never run out of deposits and deposits never limit loan creation. Saving doesn't increase the number of deposits, it just shifts them around. Borrowing money increases the number of deposits.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-b...

However, saving does have one important function. It creates a hole in the economy and that hole can then be used for investment spending (motivated by a borrower taking on a loan) without causing inflation.

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

#403

Post by cortesoft »

einpoklum wrote: post #387
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the contradiction, could you explain?

If "rental supply drops", that means the people who own apartments they don't live in won't let them out. If they don't let them out, they're subject to the anti-empty-apartment laws.

The problem is that there can be NO new rentals on the market, because you can’t buy a home and rent it out. If someone is renting out a property and then decides to sell it, that is one less rental on the market that can’t be replaced. Any house that is bought can’t be rented out ever, so there is no new rentals.

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

#404

Post by dragonwriter »

gruez wrote: post #391
kingludite wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get how people can keep saying this. Is it that people are told banks lend out money from depositors in school? Anyway, if you sign a contract that says you shall pay me every month for 30 years OR ELSE I get to sell your house (and whatever else you own, seize your income etc) then the document with your signature IS the value created and I can sell that document for what it is worth. So the bank creates mon…

>>Charging 0% interest means the bank is losing money. > I don't get how people can keep saying this. Is it that people are told banks lend out money from depositors in school? They don't? Where is the money from? Due to complicated reasons (ie. bundling mortgages into mortgage backed securities and selling them), it might not be the case that the mortgage issued by Bank A is funded by Bank A's depositors, but it is…

> Where is the money from?

It is created ex nihilo, limited by reserve concerns (which include hard requirements for some banks)

Note that the most of the money never exists in the form of currency, it is just accounting entries in the banking system.

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

#405

Post by imtringued »

Yaa101 wrote: post #231
rusteh1 wrote: post #165

I don't understand how this would work. How do people rent? Obviously many people can't or do not wish to own their house for any number of reasons. Who will own houses that are rented? I used to live in Amsterdam as an expat, and rented from a landlord who owned several homes in Amsterdam. Would she not be able to own and rent these homes under this scheme? The social housing system seemed to be abused when I was th…

We had housing cooperation's for a century until they were forced by consecutive right wing governments to sell their houses, and thus ruining a system that was well working, except for rich friends of the right wing government to speculate with the housing system, which is taking place now.

One of the dumbest things to do with government owned land is to sell it. You get a quick injection of cash and then the money runs out just as quickly. Meanwhile the land keeps going up in value forcing the government to subsidize housing for low income earners. If the government kept the land it could lease it out at reasonable rates and have an ongoing income stream.

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

#406

Post by fmajid »

einpoklum wrote: post #387
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the contradiction, could you explain?

If "rental supply drops", that means the people who own apartments they don't live in won't let them out. If they don't let them out, they're subject to the anti-empty-apartment laws.

No, the owners who are grandfathered in rub their hand in glee, as over time only own-to-occupy buyers are allowed, thus the supply of rentals goes down and rentals become more expensive, thus making their rents higher and more lucrative.

The answer is to reduce the centralization of jobs and other factors that cause everyone to want to live in Amsterdam, e.g. building out Lelystad or Buitenveldert. To a certain extent, COVID and WFH has started doing that.

I lived in Amsterdam in 1999 and house prices there seemed quite reasonable to me compared to Paris where I was coming from, but of course many things may have changed in two decades.

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

#407

Post by wsc981 »

lunarboy wrote: post #17

Interested how this plays out in other countries in terms of both reception and actual effect. The current Korean gov set out to reduce house prices by various methods: e.g. high property taxes on houses that are not the owners primary residence, banning loans/mortage for flipping homes, etc. But prices have gone up more during this regulation. People suspect its actually driving buyers to buy before more regulations…

As others have mentioned the best solution is to just build a massive supply of houses, in order for supply to outstrip demand. This, however, is unlikely to happen in the next 10-15 years. Especially if The Netherlands keeps the current immigration levels up (~400 people per week).

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

#408

Post by imtringued »

murgindrag wrote: post #369
simonh wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the article is saying ownership is a bad thing in itself, but that the vast resources that have been poured into promoting and subsidising it have had some pretty undesirable consequences. Here in the UK we have started imposing tax penalties on buy to rent that disincentivizes owning more than one or two rental properties. The problem with punishing institutional investors is it would take huge amounts…

Investment in the housing market drives up supply of buildings, and drives up the cost of the land underneath them. In high-cost markets, most of the cost is the land, not development on that land. You can waive the higher taxes for very high density developments. Skyscrapers to require investors, and that is beneficial.

A progressive land tax would encourage investors to have few but high quality/density properties. The tax would be something like 2% for the individual home owner with less than 1000m^2 of land and 10% for companies owning 5000m^2 or more land.

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

#409

Post by luckylion »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #328
rusteh1 wrote: post #165

I don't understand how this would work. How do people rent? Obviously many people can't or do not wish to own their house for any number of reasons. Who will own houses that are rented? I used to live in Amsterdam as an expat, and rented from a landlord who owned several homes in Amsterdam. Would she not be able to own and rent these homes under this scheme? The social housing system seemed to be abused when I was th…

This is one of those terribly myopic and symbolic policies that the Netherlands (despite generally one of the best governed countries in the world) keeps falling for. Studies have shown over and over again that investors aren't causing the price increases in the Netherlands. Prices won't improve much. Renting is going to take a beating, which is already an extremely small sector in the Netherlands, among the smallest…

> It seems like the least controversial thing that the left and the right should have agreement over: rich people not getting subsidised social housing.

The argument I've heard in Germany is that it's a good idea to have more socially mixed housing projects, so people who moved in as students are allowed to stay when they work full time. Initially they had to pay an extra fee ("Fehlbelegungsabgabe" = erroneous occupancy fee, but even with that it was much cheaper than regular housing), which was removed at some point.

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

#410

Post by imtringued »

saulpw wrote: post #67
nmca wrote: post #42

In the long term, the ethically right answer seems pretty clearly to me to be a land value tax [0]. But due to encouragement of home ownership [1], that's not going to democratically tenable in a lot of countries for 20+ years. Unfortunate situation. [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,…

How about a land value tax with an exemption for primary residence?

It would certainly be better than nothing. You can then add some sort of capital gains on primary residences so taxes will be paid on sale not during use.
Post reply on HN