701–710 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes that the speculators are correct. That is not a good assumption to make.
If the speculators are wrong the price goes down and people tend not to complain about them. People only start bringing up speculators when they are correct.
/s
Unethical? Should be disallowed period. I do strongly believe that once a propery is yours what you do with it is your concern and nobody else's. However, the business practice of purchasing properties to profit from selling it again in the future should not be allowed. So, what should happen is the government should not allow the transfer of ownership when the seller has a) multiple properties and b) is selling a pr…
>b) is selling a propery for more than 3% (inflation adjusted) of the intial purchase value This makes it more profitable to sit and collect rent than to sell. Property will never change hands. I hope the current owner knows how to build.
It's a natural first impulse, but it's wrong. What is the correct impulse is to be concerned about how lopsided most cities zoning is towards single family, as that is what is driving the market power that makes real estate profitable as a financial asset. If most of a city was zoned to allow up to multi residential highrises rather than most of a city being zoned for single family it would cut the appreciation abili…
If people want to have families they should have to move out to the country side and build a family home. Apartments and single person residencies should be the only units allowed to be built in cities where young people have to work and try to build wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the rental price of the apartment is above that, they won't pay it and find another place. If there are no places they will go homeless. Since landlords are already charging for this value, an increase of taxes does not increase the rents. Nope. Sorry but that's not how it works. If the landlord has to pay 4x tax they will pass some (all) of that increase to the renter. Also, a 4x increase in tax != 4x increase…
> So, say the property is worth 1mil$, and you pay 1% tax. That's 10k. You charge 3k rent. The taxman makes the tax 4%, now you have to pay 40k. You decide to pass 30k to the renter. So now they pay 36k+30k rent per year. 4x tax, 2x rent. The price of the property is based on the return that the landlord can return. This should be obvious. If you increase the tax by 4x, the most likely result is the market value will…
Also, what people don't get is that the same people that set the tax are the people that have the land and the political and economic power. Why would they do something that goes againt their best interest? We're all cool and open to all kinds of things until it happens in out backyards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't there a downvote button? Such an agenda.
You're funny, I have no agenda. I'm a new owner of a triplex, always been a renter before, and we occupy one of the units. I'm just learning this as I go, but the economical dynamics are playing out in front of my eyes and I'm confused at the conflicting policies from local governments. Give me a chance and perhaps believe me if I say I just have honest and good intentions, and this is based on what I'm seeing as I e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree (favoring personal ownership over multiple ownership), but then I'm not sure how this works out. Single-family homes everywhere? It's causing housing problems due to sky rocketing prices due to low density. So I think it's accepted that we need multi-family homes, to gain higher density housing. Ultimately skyscrapers, but in most case a few units per building. In most jurisdiction, the cost of devel…
I live in Norway, and it seems to work just fine. The density isn't all that high compared to, say, NYC, but anyways there definitely are plenty of multi-unit apartment building, which suffer from the same organizational problems, that manage to survive fine as individually owned units. I am not qualified to speak too much on this, but anyways it's certainly a solved problem, and there should be plenty of templates f…
Hence why I think the issue isn't about taxing more for stuff like "not owner occupied", but more about the opposite: make it faster and easier and cheaper to build high density residences. Then prices will fall and the affordable market will be served by smaller developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Renting is no less valid...than ownership I think ownership is better because people value securing the shelter where they sleep. Renting is worse because you can't make decisions about how to improve land and architecture. You are only permitted to be there under a limited contractual agreement vs. being able to stay put until you decide to sell.
You are welcome to think that. But it is an opinion, and not one shared by everyone. Both are equally valid options; in my opinion. I've been in times of my life where owning was better for me. I've been in times of my life where renting was better for me. At the times I was renting, I was very grateful for the landlord I had at the time (mostly; I've had a small number of landlords I did not like); they take on the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why it's a land value tax, on the unimproved value of the land. Not all land is created equal. Land that's out in the boonies, which nobody wants, is going to have a low value and hence low tax. Land in a downtown area, close to all the amenities, transit, parks, etc. - will have a high value and high tax. To answer all your questions: "If I buy a piece of the said land near a town and don't use it for anythin…
>> "What if the city builds infra near my land that makes it effective now to develop? Should I pay more tax now?" > Yes, you should. Doesn't this make NIMBYism even more tempting? I've got to be against any changes near my land, because it's going to increase my taxes and push me to move. In addition to not liking change in general.
A rational economic actor would not be a NIMBY under these conditions, because the increase in land values exceeds the increased tax they would pay, and so they could always sell their property for a profit and buy another one farther away from infrastructure if they don't like it.
In reality, people are change-averse and irrational for a variety of reasons, chief among them emotional attachment. So it wouldn't surprise me if people resist development in practice. A lot of NIMBYism is already of this vein - upzoning a property usually increases its value (because it can be redeveloped into more units), but is also frequently fiercely resisted by existing residents who won't sell at any price.
Note that a system can be rational even if participants are not - capitalism is, because actors who are irrational eventually go bankrupt and are forced to work for actors who are economically rational. That doesn't stop it from being unpopular, which, again, capitalism is. Many of the political issues getting an LVT adopted stem from this.
>a basic human right You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses. This is where this entire discussion collapses for me. Yes, I agree there needs to be more access to housing. And it’s frustrating to me that our government is too inept to simply provide it. For instance: we have committed to about 45 Billion to Ukraine. At a cost of $100k/unit (achievable at scal…
I wonder why that is.
> some people talking about housing as if they have a “right” to a house (that is: a right to force people like me to build them a house at gunpoint)
This must be the reason you think it's absurd, you've concocted a bizarre strawman that approximately nobody is advocating for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lot is zoned for 14 units, has 4 currently. If we give the 2 other families that live here a few hundred thousand dollar entitlement it will never be developed. Your proposal is insane. They've paid 600 dollars (rent control) a month for (let's say) 10 years. 60k buy in for a quarter of a 1.2m dollar property? I'd take that deal as a renter.
That's why I said if the tenant has been there for a sufficient time. If they have covered the unit's cost, plus maintenance, they have effectively paid for all the owner's expenses. Shouldn't it be enough to effectively own the property they actually live in?
If my tenants lose their jobs they get six months free rent while I go through the eviction process. If I lose my job and can't get another I have to sell my property for a six figure loss.
I can make this property a single family home or I can make it available to other people as housing that they can't afford to buy outright. I don't understand the landlord hate. They can pool money, form an LLC, and buy a property if they want a tennant in commons situation. They can take on the risk and do the work.