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

Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 764 posts

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#471

Post by iso1631 »

end_of_line wrote: post #421
iso1631 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax would solve this - you want to use that acre of American Land, you pay the American People for the priviliege.

Ah sure. Old lady living in the house she bought 50 years ago will have to pay insanely high land tax because now it's red hot city location, what 50 years ago used to be suburbs. Very clever idea. Taxation was never a solution to any problem. It was a way to mask the problem in a very populist way. Taxation purpose was a redistribution from 'evil crooks' to poor, unlucky people. The problem with Taxation always was…

> Very clever idea.

Yes. yes it is. She's made millions for doing nothing useful.

> the rich ones had plenty of solutions not to pay including with moving to an another country

How does a rich land owner avoid paying a land tax? Or a tax on the value of his copyrights (which would be land)

Yes the middle class get shafted on things like income and capital gains based taxes, that's the great thing about a land value tax, it taxes the immovable land, not the movable person.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#472

Post by jventura »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #245
hprotagonist wrote: post #17

"I'm not doing any harm," you say. "I just want to keep what I own, that's all." You own! You are like someone who sits down in a theater and keeps everyone else away, saying that what is there for everyone's use is your own...If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor. After all, didn't you come into life naked, and won't you return naked…

>> "If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor" This theory is called communism and it is one of the deadliest ideas known to man. That said, there's an element of truth to the statement. There would be no such thing as rich and poor, there would only be poor.

I think you read too much between the lines! To me it says that you should only get as much as you need, not more, not less, and leave the rest for the others..

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#473

Post by UtopiaPunk »

Yeah, it's a problem. By treating housing as an investment, any profit motivated entity becomes interested. Companies start buying and holding them like stocks or gold because it is an asset that reliably appreciates in value faster than inflation.

Meanwhile, average homeowners are practically required to consider their house as an investment as well. In an increasingly precarious society, owning a home is one of a few things that a middle class person can do that guarantees some financial stability. Homeowners are incentivized to support policies that drive up their home's value so that they can sell it later (and maybe have enough money for retirement). Some of these policies include supporting single family zoning (of which there is a shocking amount) and opposing affordable housing projects in their neighborhood.

When housing costs rise faster than wage growth, the barrier to breaking into home ownership becomes increasingly difficult. A class system of renters, home owners, and landlords is forming and becoming rigid.

Housing is not supposed to be a financial investment strategy.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#474

Post by yasp »

mxkopy wrote: post #434
yasp wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a roof over ones head is a basic human right. Prove it.

I. Not having shelter kills. II. To not be killed is a basic human right. => Having shelter is a basic human right QED

If we are to assume that human rights are universal (the UN says so), premise two is invalid, as it is not universalizable.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#475

Post by colordrops »

prvit wrote: post #384
elevatortrim wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be true if rent was a percentage on top of cost. But it is not, it is whatever maximum renters are willing to pay.

How come rents for high-end real estate in Paris are vastly higher than in London? Sales prices on the other hand are vastly lower. Are the prices so high because people in Paris are willing to pay much higher rents more people in London? Or are they so high because renting in Paris is super risky for the landlord due to aggressive tenant protections?

So to be clear, are rents in Paris vastly higher in general, or just for "high-end real estate"? If just the latter, then great, sounds like the policies are working.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#476

Post by z9znz »

yasp wrote: post #346
josh_p wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Article 25

An organization saying X doesn't make X true. Perhaps OP meant to write "According to the UN, having a roof over ones head is a basic human right."

"We" as evolved social animals have pretty universally come to the agreement that humans should have a few basic necessities, such as food, water, shelter, (and less agreed but equally important) personal safety.

I could ask if you continuing to live is your human right.

I'm not sure there's any absolute decree that everyone can agree on that says you deserve to live. However, we evolved people tend to assume that every human deserves to continue living (at least until our differences become too great, at which time we sometimes just kill each other).

Therefore, your demand for proof that having shelter is a human right is bunk.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#477

Post by usgroup »

sershe wrote: post #415

There's no basic human right to have a roof over your head, for the simple reason that someone has to make the roof. Saying "I have a right to have it [without building it yourself]" is saying "I have a right to force someone to build it for me". I dunno about you, I'm uneasy about forced labor. Even beyond that, there's certainly no right to have the roof over your head wherever you want - there is simply not enough…

> There's no basic human right to have a roof over your head, for the simple reason that someone has to make the roof.

I guess someone has to provide food and security too. Would you say that these also are not basic human rights?

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#478

Post by esoterica »

LBJsPNS wrote: post #147
chii wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"our" neighborhood implies that you own it - so if you owned something, and sold it, how can you complain that someone (or gasp, a corporation) is buying when you're selling?

Quoted post unavailable.

You live here but you don’t own your neighbors homes and you have no right to tell them what they can do with them. Who cares what “reason” you bought your home for, that is literally no one else’s problem but yours. You’re no different from the HOA tyrants who scream at their neighbors for painting their house the wrong color.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#479

Post by danaris »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #56
oblak wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster above you (whittingtonaaon) proposed raising taxes on secondary, tertiary, etc. homes. That makes sense to me but "investors" looking for easy prey would surely hate on such solution. It's not like no one could have thought of this until now. I do not say this with the US in mind.

How do you propose we would — systematically — provide housing to people who, for whatever reason, are not in a position to buy? Should housing be bifurcated into government-provided housing for renters and privately-owned housing for those fortunate enough to have the money and stability to buy? Would you like to live in government housing, or would you prefer to keep the investor-owned rental option, but have them…

Landlords do not provide a service.

They take otherwise-purchasable properties off the market, then make money off preventing other people from owning them in perpetuity.

Some landlords also offer property management services, but that is a separate field entirely. It would be fairly easy for an apartment building to consist of entirely owner-occupied units, who could then join together in a co-op to either put individual local contractors on retainer for things like plumbing, electrical, and miscellaneous repair services, or find a one-stop-shop company to hire for it.

Post reply on HN