Live data from Hacker News

Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

goodreason.substack.com

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#471
post #5

That implies housing has risks. Since 2009, that risk has been eliminated by the FED owning 30% of all mortgages on its balance sheet. We've nationalized housing risk and privatized the gains.

Housing in America was basically a backdoor pension system for the working/middle class. Without the dramatic rise in housing prices, the boomer generation would be struggling to retire.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#472
post #449
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that. Investment homes, second or maybe just third homes, etc. should be taxed rather extremely aggressively.

The problem with this approach is the impact it has on areas that have availability problems, and where there is more demand than supply for housing (think big cities that are experiencing condo booms). In those high-demand areas, owners will simply pass those tax costs down to their tenants, and the rents prices will go up, leading to even less affordability.

If you combine that with looser zoning regs, the higher rents will make building more housing more lucrative.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This astonishes me about the US real estate market and is something I was only educated to on HN in the last week or so. I had absolutely no idea that 30 year fixed mortgages were not only widely available but the common standard there.

I just love this quote from Sid Verma: "A lot of Americans are bragging that in their country they can get a fixed mortgage for 30 years. But it's worth remembering that for cultural and historic reasons, a lot of Europeans choose to reject socialism." https://twitter.com/_SidVerma/status/1575185906218442752?s=2... Note that the mortgages aren't even fixed rate, since you can replace them with a lower rate mortgage i…

~15% of the mortgage market is ARM in the US

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#474
Poster appears surprised that home vales are based on "demand outstripping supply". That's what any value of anything is based on. That's the basics of economics. Housing goes up because there are more people that want a home than there are homes. Everything else is just noise.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#475
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is anecdotal, but whenever I hear these stories, I'm curious about the details. A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typically ranges from about 90k-110k per year. Finding apartments off Broadway in Cap Hill, I can see that studios, though relatively expensive, range around $1.5-2k a month. An income tax calculator estimates about a 22% total tax bracket and a monthly adjusted…

“House poor” was typically having to pay at least 25% of your take-home income on housing.

"was"? When?

Federal DTI maximum for mortgages is 45% with a good credit score and/or cash reserves. For apartment complexes, they typically won't lease, or will require a bigger deposit, if your gross monthly income isn't 3x the rent (which typically means it's 40%+ of your net income).

If 25% 'was' house poor, then at least 90% of today's mortgage-holding and rent-paying Americans are house poor.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#476
post #58
post #6

> Meanwhile, renters are desperate. They’re begging for housing prices not just to slow, but to fall. I have a friend who is a head chef at a decently popular bar and restaurant on Broadway in Capitol Hill, Seattle (very trendy part of town if you aren't familiar, steep commercial rent). He lives in a 400 sq ft studio and is barely, barely making it from one paycheck to the next. I am sitting on a 2.6% interest rate…

What sucks is a lot of young renters with steady jobs can afford to pay off a mortgage month to month, but they just can't afford that down payment (especially the 20% needed so as to not need to get mortgage insurance)! I was in that position for a while. Every time it seemed like I could afford to put that money down, the housing prices went up! It took a handful of years of renting cheap places (with roommates), l…

Depending on the jurisdiction, the taxes are what get you. The mortgage looks cheap but pile on another 3.5% of the assessed house value per year and it’s not fun.

That being said - I think it’s good to get a property of your own as soon as possible. The rent situation is only getting worse.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#477
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will GPT-6 replace a plumber? I think not. Will GPT-6 replace some subset 10..80% of engineering, law, medical hours? absolutely

I'm not so sure. There is a Planet Money episode that talks about the effect the digital spreadsheet had on accounting employment: > Thanks to spreadsheets, there are 400,000 fewer accounting clerks than in 1980, but 600,000 more regular accountants. Might something like GPT-6 cause employment to shift to higher value job responsibilities? https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/25/389027988/epis...

Developers are really dumb wanting to optimize code development.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#478
A lot of this is discussed by strong towns. What is appreciating is the land underneath the house due to supply and demand. The physical house depreciates over time.

They discuss numerous solutions like abolishing zoning laws as well as changing tax code to tax the land and not the value of the home.

I’m still optimistic that technology will disrupt building costs and totally change our options. Imagine if we could buy a 3d printed home for 50 percent of current costs.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A high Land Value Tax accomplishes this. It negates the appreciation generated merely by land scarcity and value of surrounding land, which means the only way to get gains from your real estate holdings is indeed to put labor and capital into improving it.

I think annual land value taxes are efficient at resource allocation but unacceptably punitive on owners. You should not be penalized or motivated to sell simply because a 3rd party can get a higher return. Similarly, value gains from land appreciation are taxed at the time of sale. IF I pay annual taxes on land appreciation, I should be exempt from taxes at the point of sale, otherwise I am paying for that appreciat…

Land belongs to society, not whoever has a house on it. If you are using it ineffectively you deserve to be punished by society via taxes because you are directly making the community worse off.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#480
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of makes sense. When you own a property, you have to maintain it and pay property taxes. When you add all that up, you either need a lot more than rent, or you need the mortgage to be lower than rent so you can afford those other expenses.

Our home was $200K. If we own it for 30 years, the property taxes will average to about $180K over that time. If we have $70K expenses (roof, HVAC, etc.) then the total would be 250K. If we sell our home at the end of 30 years for exactly what we bought it for, no raise in value at all, 200K, then 250K of maintenance works out to around $700 per month for each month of those 30 years. Any amount we can sell the house…

Don't forget the opportunity cost of that $200K of equity. If that money invested earned 5%/yr on average that is another $10K/yr bringing your $700/mo to $1,533/mo. If you sell at $450K after 30 years, that mostly just makes up for that opportunity cost (30yrs at 5% would be 432K).
Post reply on HN