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

591–598 of 598 posts

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

#591

Post by dogma1138 »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #557
iso1210 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

House price doesn't matter, it's the deposit. HTB may have pushed up the house price by say 30%, but it meant the deposit was lower (12k rather than 18k) and the repayments were lower for the first 5 years.

House price does matter. End of the day with the bump-ed up H2B house prices...sure you can afford it w/ lower deposit thanks to gov assistance...but it's not free money. You still have to pay it back, so the seller is making an extra 30% of our backs bc they bumped the prices thanks to this scheme that was meant to "help" people.

People don’t pay them back no one can pay back 40% after 5 years assuming they bought in London.

If they do pay it back they do it by remortgaging so the builders win, the banks win, the tax payer pays for any HTB loans that aren’t repaid and the tax payer gets shafted with higher housing costs.

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

#592

Post by dogma1138 »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #556
iso1210 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HTB is a disastrous policy that did nothing but to increase the prices of properties. It let me buy a property which I wouldn't be able to without HTB, therefore your statement is objectively wrong. > And commuting towns aren’t that cheaper either Plenty of 2 bed houses in daily commuting distance for £250k - easily affordable on a London wage.

HTB has definitely increased the prices of HTB eligible properties because they realised that buyers could afford a bit more w/ Gov assistance and so sellers are squeezing people for it. Really, HTB should not have had a restriction on new builds. It's laughable because the restriction would make sense if the Gov was allowing anyone to actually build new properties. I think you're FYIGM'ing. Idk where you're finding…

It’s not that buyers could afford a bit more, buyers could afford essentially to pay double in London.

This isn’t because of the deposit but because HTB essentially allows you to buy a property for double the price in London.

Most people couldn’t afford a 500K property not because they can’t save up £50K but because they won’t have a salary north of £100K for the bank to loan them the rest as lenders cap the loan amount at 4-4.5 times your annual salary.

So now people that earn £50K can buy a property that only people that earn £100-120K could regardless of their deposits.

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

#593

Post by systoll »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #580
systoll wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all else isn’t equal – denser places have less land per house. With a property tax, the total tax bill increases when you build upward and make the apartment block. If you take a lot with a single home on it, and then stack 9 identical homes on top, the resulting property might be worth 9x as much. That’d mean the renters of that bottom home still have to pay 90% of their old property tax. With LVT, the tax bill…

Overly optimistic. If you stack 10 family homes the land is now 10x more valuable and gets taxed accordingly.

If you bring more families into an area, the land around them may become more valuable, but there’s no reason that effect would be localised to the apartment block.

This is the core distinction between LVT and property tax.

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

#594

Post by R0b0t1 »

systoll wrote: post #593
R0b0t1 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overly optimistic. If you stack 10 family homes the land is now 10x more valuable and gets taxed accordingly.

If you bring more families into an area, the land around them may become more valuable, but there’s no reason that effect would be localised to the apartment block. This is the core distinction between LVT and property tax.

That makes no sense. If land affects the value of the land around it then it had to have gone up.

If you put 10 family dwellings on land, then its value is at least that of 10 family dwellings. So each individual renter is somehow paying 1/10th the 10x greater cost. You haven't reduced the LVT by sharing it between the LVT between the renters, they're all paying the same or more.

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

#595

Post by jlokier »

chrisseaton wrote: post #480
imtringued wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. It's the land that goes up in value.

Houses get more valuable the older they are. Most people don't want new houses.

That's true up to a point, but many houses decay beyond profitable repair eventually.

It depends how they are constructed and maintained.

In some cultures, houses are not expected to last a long time. Japanese houses famously depreciate with time and lose all their value after about 20 to 30 years.

In other cultures, houses that could last a long time don't get maintained if the people living in them are too poor to do so. Depending on the materials, and construction aspects like breathability, the house could still last a long time, or the materials could decay, crumble, become mouldy etc to the point that the only economical thing to do is tear the house down and rebuild.

Old houses (especially mansions) that are particularly historically interesting or very old may have preservation orders on them, limiting how you are permitted repair and rebuild. Sometimes this means repair will cost so much that only a rich person could afford to do it, and the repaired result would be worth less than the cost of that repair, so the transaction value of the property drops to a nominally low value (it's really negative value), but it's only available to someone who can afford to repair it. These properties tend to be inherited, and then the new owner can't afford to look after them.

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

#596

Post by systoll »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #594
systoll wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you bring more families into an area, the land around them may become more valuable, but there’s no reason that effect would be localised to the apartment block. This is the core distinction between LVT and property tax.

That makes no sense. If land affects the value of the land around it then it had to have gone up. If you put 10 family dwellings on land, then its value is at least that of 10 family dwellings. So each individual renter is somehow paying 1/10th the 10x greater cost. You haven't reduced the LVT by sharing it between the LVT between the renters, they're all paying the same or more.

If you buy a block of land with 10 filled apartments on it, and then you demolish it and leave it vacant, the land still has value.

In theory, it still has whatever value the optimal use would provide.

In reality we don’t have an optimal land use oracle, and valuation techniques would take the vacant lot as a data point suggesting that the area is bad. The assessed land value might decrease a tiny bit – along with that of your entire suburb, and similar regions. But it’s not going to zero.

Similarly, if you take a block of land, put 10 apartments on there, and fill them with renters, you’ll create property value where there was none, but the land value isn’t going to go up 10x.

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

#597

Post by pempem »

emodendroket wrote: post #538
pempem wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about that. The benefits are better and more structured and there are multitudes of articles about how they are much much harder to access, leaving most workers partially dependent on state benefits

Mom and pop shops often just don't offer benefits at all. Go slightly bigger and they'll have a health plan that's easy to enroll in but the premiums and co-pays will make your eyes water.

Thats true, but they also arent usually sophisticated enough to use a LEAN scheduling approach and combine it with budgeted hours that keep you under the benefits line + an approach of expendability to their workers.

Until one of us creates a free-ish software to help them do that ofc.

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

#598

Post by bdowling »

jjeaff wrote: post #539
bdowling wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The hypothesis speculates that, if a building's assessed value is lowered, it could trigger conditions in loan contracts that penalize the landlord or investor. This is the issue exactly. A commercial mortgage lender will insist on a certain maximum Loan-to-Value ratio. The value of the property is directly related to the long-term income that it generates (i.e., the net present value of all future cash flows). If…

I have heard this explanation a few times, but what i don't get is why doesn't a long term vacancy trigger an adjusted loan to value ratio? Seems like it would cause an appraisal to be much lower than just charging less rent and actually getting a tenant.

The present value of an income stream starting in the future at the established rate may be higher in some cases than the present value of an income stream at a lower rate that starts immediately.
Post reply on HN