Earlier quoted context omitted.
For reference, my mortgage from 13 years ago was 4.85%, the one I got 6 months ago was 4.25%, about 1.5 years ago we got 2%. When I was born in the early 80's, my parents were doing 12%. Of course, housing prices adapt so that banks always extract a nice, steady amount from the people. Even more nowadays, when there's more to extract because more women started working. More to the daycare, more to the banks, the Amer…
Maybe a hot take but I feel like high(er) interest rates for homes should be the standard. This allows for demand to be modulated, and puts up a barrier to rent seekers from flooding the market. The problem is that over the past 5-10 years a lot of property has already been snapped up by investors at minimal interest rates, so as long as rents stay somewhat stable, they investors will be raking in the returns. I gues…
- prevent corporations from owning residential property
- tax property rental income at a substantially higher rate than income and exempt it from other deductions
- tax residential property which is empty for more than de minimis periods at an eye-watering rate (perhaps 5-6x standard property taxes).
None of this requires higher interest rates, but it will result in a transfer of wealth away from aging boomers and corporations, which apparently must be avoided at all costs.