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

MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

ocw.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 137 posts

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#11

Post by ww520 »

jmyeet wrote: post #2

We need to stop treating real restate--especially residential real estate--as a mechanism for creating wealth. there are enough homeowners that they vote for politicians and policies that will increase the value of their "investments". All this does is simply steal money from the next generation. Our entire economic system is designed to transfer wealth from the young and poor and the old and wealthy. There is a dist…

"Social Housing" sounds like a bad idea. Whenever something is "socially owned," it means it is controlled by a few who have wormed their way into the power position to control whom get to utilize that something. It comes down to who decides who can live in this social housing, and whether one could be kicked out by the whim of some bureaucrats or some committees. It's the HOA nightmare multiplies 100 times.

Basically it's what is your right and claim to this "social housing"? Pretty soon that right will become a personal ownership right, and private real estate ownership is back and so is commercial real estate.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#12

Post by t-writescode »

kredd wrote: post #9
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

Not sure how it's down there, but my understanding is even if we have housing crisis, legislations that would actually bring down the housing prices is also bad for us. RE market is about 10%+ of the entire GDP, so we want individuals to park their money and use it as an investment vehicle as a part of the consumption cycle. Combine it with "i'll just buy it for my child/spouse/mom/dad" and so on, it's not really tha…

> legislations that would actually bring down the housing prices is also bad for us

Then perhaps we should make a 20 year rollout plan to help us adjust; but, individuals being able to live in a location for a consistent price and other improved social safety nets are a net positive for society and government is supposed to work *for* society as a whole, not just the elites

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#13

Post by smeej »

charlie0 wrote: post #6
latenightcoding wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prime minister of Canada literally said housing can't come down because it's the retirement plan of a lot of boomers.

Which is odd because I don't see a lot of downsizing from any boomer I know, the equity is locked away on the home until they sell.

Is it? There are several ways to draw against the equity of the house in the U.S. Are these absent in Canada?

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#14

Post by smiley1437 »

charlie0 wrote: post #6
latenightcoding wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prime minister of Canada literally said housing can't come down because it's the retirement plan of a lot of boomers.

Which is odd because I don't see a lot of downsizing from any boomer I know, the equity is locked away on the home until they sell.

> the equity is locked away on the home until they sell.

Some people get reverse mortgages so they can spend some of the equity of the home while they still live in it:

https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/...

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#15

Post by ehfeng »

hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

I disagree with your "natural" person qualification. "Non-natural persons" includes anyone with a work visa or green card. It's hard enough for most people to get these, much less become fully naturalized citizens. Plus, the waiting time isn't guaranteed in length: it's variable based on the political climate. It's hard enough for immigrants today. Making the viability of home ownership based on political whims only worsens it. Shouldn't we prefer these immigrants become homeowners, increasing their "investment" in their local communities?

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#16

Post by [deleted] »

charlie0 wrote: post #7
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

Trusts. It's relatively easy to hide who owns what.

[deleted]

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#17

Post by jeffparsons »

charlie0 wrote: post #7
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

Trusts. It's relatively easy to hide who owns what.

This is solvable. If a trust owns the property, default to the highest tax rate. The trustee is then responsible for providing proof of the beneficial owner(s) if they want the "discount" rate.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#18

Post by cpursley »

swatcoder wrote: post #8
jmyeet wrote: post #2

We need to stop treating real restate--especially residential real estate--as a mechanism for creating wealth. there are enough homeowners that they vote for politicians and policies that will increase the value of their "investments". All this does is simply steal money from the next generation. Our entire economic system is designed to transfer wealth from the young and poor and the old and wealthy. There is a dist…

No political remedy will work until there's a culture shift, and that's probably still a generation or two away. The baseline that people seek isn't just a reliable place to sleep, eat, and clean themselves. They want the television-depicted life: a home which they only (at most) share with a partner and some pre-adult children, where everyone has their own bedroom, and there's probably at least one more bedroom to e…

Nailed it.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#19

Post by popol12 »

charlie0 wrote: post #7
hahahacorn wrote: post #5

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

Trusts. It's relatively easy to hide who owns what.

you skimmed over this part of his message:

> automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons

Post reply on HN