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

421–430 of 598 posts

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

#421

Post by imtringued »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #304
taffer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To avoid paying the LVT tenants are incentivized to own LVT is paid by the owner of the land. That is the whole point of a LVT, that you cannot avoid it.

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

On paper it will be passed to the renter. The owner of the land obtains returns through rent seeking.

If he raises his rents to the maximum that renters are willing to pay then the value of the land grows and he has to pay more land value taxes. He actually cannot make land more expensive. He can only make the land as expensive as it already is.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the effective tax burden on the tenant has risen in the process. For that reason I would encourage the government to reduce income taxes.

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

#422

Post by colechristensen »

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…

So the housing market is so inefficient that removing a significant source of demand won’t change prices?

That is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional evidence.

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

#423

Post by chrisseaton »

im3w1l wrote: post #411
imtringued wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are blaming outsiders for giving us too much money. Where is all that money going if not into the hands of locals who are selling their property?

Consider a community of 10000 households. 5000 rent their housing, 4500 own their own place, and 500 own more than one place. Now outsiders enter the picture and buy property driving up the prices. The 5000 renting households are now in trouble. If rents go up they are squeezed that way. With rent control there are still issues: Their kids are unable to move out, and separations become tricky. For the 4500 it's a mix…

> Now outsiders enter the picture and buy property

Buy it from who? Locals. So who gets the money? Locals.

But anyway the point was don’t divide people into insiders and ‘outsiders’.

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

#424

Post by seanmcdirmid »

joelbluminator wrote: post #390
berkes wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While banks may not check this on signing, they'll certainly check it when you start defaulting. This really is the worst advice ever. It's a sure way to get you in Real Trouble when shit hits fans. This is not legal advice either, btw. Just someone who read the tiny letters in the mortgage contracts.

If he defaults. From his point a view he is not risking too much; he never put his own money as down payment it was 100÷ mortgage which NL is too generous with. Then the rent he earns is higher than the mortgage due to the low interest. So best case he ends up with 3 houses in 25 years. Worst case he gets some angry letters from the bank and loses houses that arent really his. I am not condoning his actions but they…

But he lied on his mortgage application about loans in other countries. So he could be up for some fraud criminal charges, and jail time.

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

#425

Post by imtringued »

pydry wrote: post #319
taffer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would certainly discourage the building of houses in the city centre. No, that's not how it works. The value of a property is made up of the value of the land and the value of the buildings on it. If one of these two components is taxed, its value is reduced. However, it is important to remember that the supply of land is fixed, but the supply of buildings is not. If one taxes buildings, as is the case with a tr…

That's essentially my point. A house in the city center which consumes the same amount of land as an apartment block would face the same tax bill. Who would want that house with that tax bill?

The bill is high because people are willing to pay it. If the neighboring properties are 3 story multifamily buildings then this one will be upgraded to a 3 story building as well.

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

#426

Post by mattmanser »

simonh wrote: post #144
murgindrag wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sold on the Economist article. I do believe in home ownership. The idea that a person spends a lifetime in the same home and community is a good one. We're tribal creatures, and you want a tribe -- you want people to know their neighbors, have community BBQs, and live in real communities. You want enough of a vested interest in municipal politics that democratic structures work. You want kids growing up with…

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…

They're not imposing tax penalties, they just got rid of the tax breaks.

You can no longer claim a mortgage as an 'expense' when calculating your profits.

That's not how it works for other companies, loan repayments are not classified as an expense to reduce your profits.

So now they have to pay the same tax rate as other businesses, where before they were getting a huge tax break.

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

#427

Post by andrepd »

ipaddr wrote: post #336
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution is the problem. The house prices are a blood-sucking squid, and you are pay for them every time you get a coffee or get any service - half the money is going to the labdowner that contributes nothing to the economy. That's why a coffee costs £5 and a plumber charges £100 an hour But we have fools that celebrate rising house prices because their nominal net worth went up

If prices were going down would things be better? You bought a 500,000 and in ten years it will be worth 100,000 would you still make that investment? Everyone wants prices to remain the same forever. That takes a neutral population growth or more supply

>investment

That's exactly the problem right there. A house can be a place to live or an investment, but not both. I myself think it's a bit to silly to spend labour and resources building a concrete box for the latter purpose, so I'd much rather houses fulfill their purpose as homes for people to live in.

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

#428

Post by logicchains »

sumedh wrote: post #222
tellersid wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greedy? Not me. Always the other guy that is greedy. The irony is there is such high probability with posting on this board you are part of the top 1% of the globe when it comes to wealth.

> you are part of the top 1% of the globe when it comes to wealth. So what, what do you want the person to do, go live in a hut? How is that person greedy compared to people with multiple houses?

>How is that person greedy compared to people with multiple houses?

They're greedy because they think the world owes them cheap housing just by virtue of being born. The person who owns multiple houses actually did some work to earn the money to pay for them, they're not the one eyeing other people's property with envy.

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

#430

Post by logicchains »

mcv wrote: post #81
arvinsim wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an excuse. Lots of undesirable traits are also innate like violence, tribalism, etc. Does that mean we give those a free pass?

Exactly. We've got laws to mitigate or redirect any harmful innate traits that we've got. Greed, like violence, is definitely among them.

>Exactly. We've got laws to mitigate or redirect any harmful innate traits that we've got. Greed, like violence, is definitely among them.

And what about envy? That's clearly a big problem among commenters in this thread.

Post reply on HN