Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by logicchains » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

avsteele wrote: post #244

What's the deal with landlord hate? If I buy a lawnmower, pool, or whatever else and rent it out you all are ok with that. If I buy a house and rent it out suddenly I'm an "enemy of the people".

Most leftists are driven by envy; they see someone else has something they can't afford, and they feel rage. They can't afford multiple houses, so seeing people with multiple houses triggers this feeling. Fundamentally it's because they're so ego-driven they can't accept the market rewards people fairly, because doing so would require accepting that someone else deserves those houses more than they do.

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

#442

Post by imtringued » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #128

akudha wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is becoming a problem in farmlands too. Young farmers are unable to buy farmlands, they are forced to lease from huge landowners. It is zero risk investment for these big landowners. Farmers do all the work, put in all the investment like tools (except the land) - landowners simply collect rent. Some of these people own hundreds of thousands of acres (Bill Gates, for example). This is an ugly situation. This is…

Oh, I know! We can give them the land for free, but instead we get to collect a tax on their produce. Of course they cannot leave this arrangement without immediately paying for all the land. I think we can call these people serfs.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28424989

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

#443

Post by gruez » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #402

gruez wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 d…

>If we assume a cashless system then banks can never run out of deposits and deposits never limit loan creation

...except for reserve/capital requirements, right?

>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.

In other words, capital isn't free as the parent poster suggests.

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

#444

Post by laurent92 » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

sideshowb wrote: post #309

laurent92 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it was recovering the freedom that was getting eaten by Europe, and listening to the vote of the UK people again. Whether it ends up in “getting rid of foreigners” or anything else would only be a second-order result of listening to the Englishman’s vote, if that is what they still vote for in 10 years. The goal of Brexit was democracy, not particular measures left or right.

Amusing you equate democracy with the English vote. Sincerely, Scotland, Wales and NI

I’m equating democracy with listening to the most numerous. You have been thoroughly defeated with 3 blatant-majority votes in 4 years. If you don’t like it, you were never in favour of democracy, and if you are not in solidarity with your English mates, tell me about solidarity with an entire continent.

Name a single country that succeeded to leave EU without retaliation from said EU and I’ll eat my hat. EU is not a choice for most of us on the continent. We’re not free to leave, and we were manipulated into joining.

Long story short: The simple fact that it required not 1 but 3 blatant-majority votes for elites to register that yes, UK people wanted to leave EU, is a sufficient proof that EU is not listening to the most numerous.

And let’s not even talk about the quantity of funding, sponsorship and 4x3 billboards it took to swerve Scotland’s, Wales and NI in favor of EU. Manipulation is in plain sight here.

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

#445

Post by mellavora » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

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

I've read that in many Asian countries houses are seen as a depreciating asset.

And I've noticed that in the US, the observations that cars are typically depreciating assets never really stopped people from buying them.

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

#446

Post by imtringued » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

mercy_dude wrote: post #39

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…

>There is a better way - raise the real rate.

Ok, you decreased monopoly rents but you also raised the cost of everything that isn't a monopoly. You will now pay more interest on your car. Companies pay more interest and pass the cost of interest onto you through more expensive products and services.

The truth is that you didn't even make housing cheaper. You still pay $1000 per month for 30 years. Higher interest rates just mean more of your money goes to the bank in the form of interest payments rather than into home equity.

>Cheap loans along with endless printing has basically made fiat useless as a medium to store value,

I don't understand this logic. Fiat currency is created by the promise that someone will work for you. If you never redeem that promise it is worthless. You cannot store labor the same way you can store gold. All saving money does is create room for investments today. If those investments never happened then you saved for naught. You denied yourself of the value of your money and yet you have the audacity to blame others for it.

>I hope ECB and other central bankers realizes how they are fucking up an entire generation before it’s too late.Negative rates is only going to make things worse.

What negative interest rates do is force you to face the fact that you are not utilizing the promise and that money, just like grain decays over time. You are letting people sit unemployed unable to live up to their potential.

What "fucked up" an entire generation is the utilization of money as a time machine. Let's imagine a simple money system. $1 = 1 pound of grain. The grain standard. Grain decays over time. Therefore $1 appreciates exactly at the rate at which grain decays. The farmer storing grain has to pay the maintenance cost of holding onto it while the person with the money has none of the costs. Everyone will start hoarding money while they get to watch the real world decay. If you put a holding fee onto money that matches the decay rate of grain then people will be forced to spend their money on something that is more durable than grain like giant pyramids that survived for 4000 years.

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

#447

Post by tsimionescu » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

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

By this logic no one would buy food, as it drastically depreciates in a minuscule amount of time.

The real economy is the one that fulfills people's needs. Real-estate investment is parasitic to the real economy - it locks money away and artificially increases the price of a basic necessity. This has always been recognized in even basic economics with the concept of "rent-seeking" - unproductive activity that still makes money, such as literally charging rent.

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

#448

Post by coryrc » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #177

pydry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would probably encourage less urban sprawl by driving more efficient use of city center land and housing.

It depends. If owned land is converted for rent then the LVT is passed on to the tenant. To avoid paying the LVT tenants are incentivized to own, which may imply buying new construction. 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.

Currently, the owner could rent out 2 units on the land and break even. But really there could be 12 units there. LVT raises the taxes as if there were 12 units. This will bring the break-even point to renting out 6 units. The owner has to either build out the property (increasing supply, driving down rental prices), sell to someone who will, or lose money.

That's also why there shouldn't be an exemption for first home.

Obviously made up those numbers but hope you get the idea.

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

#449

Post by BlargMcLarg » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #353

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why the amen is applicable to Dutch cities. I'll take the local perspective from Amsterdam as an example, but it applies more broadly to the other cities as well here. Regarding point 1: There's no real issues with long-term vacancies (the municipality already has laws in-place which fine owners of vacant homes), typically sits between 1 and 2%. That should obviously go down to 0 as much as possible, but it'…

The Netherlands is just too rich that it is working against itself. We have created a society where every person wants their own house- 17 million people 10 million houses. And the Netherlands is a magnet for migrants- compared to most of the world the streets are paved with gold. And no matter how much the prices go up people can and will pay. Unless there's a mayor economic recession things will not get better.

People pay because it is still the best choice for the non-financially-savvy to secure their net worth given the policies our government has made the past few years. Someone else already explained how renting costs way more, and people would argue the break-even point for renting vs buying is only about 1 to 2 years. That's without taking into account all the restrictions landlords are putting up.

Once you get past the hurdle, banks give you insane amounts of money to buy these insanely priced houses with. And due to the low rent, you're not that much worse off than 5 years ago. Since no one who buys a house today wants to end up losing out, many homeowners will vehemently oppose any measure which could make the prices sink, so more borrowed money, so even higher prices as long as there isn't a suitable alternative (cheaper/affordable and easy to attain rent).

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

#450

Post by Freak_NL » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

berkes wrote: post #373

joelbluminator wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was living in NL I knew a guy who had a mortgage for a house in Australia, a mortgage on a house in Groningen and then he was looking to get another mortgage for a house in Den Haag. Banks don't seem to cooperate internationally or even nationally; he never told the banks he has mortgages already.

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.

Banks will definitely know about any other mortgages and loans you have within the Netherlands before the mortgage is finalized. These are all registered with the credit agency they all employ. The only exception to this rule (for now) is a government student loan.