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

Houses are for living, not for speculation

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 135 posts

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#11

Post by energy123 »

xtracto wrote: post #3

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My opinion is that governments should tax 2nd, 3rd and further housing so as to prevent people from accumulating residential buildings. If you want to live of your rents, buy a commercial or industrial building, speculate with that. But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary.

A bad idea in isolation, because it forces people to store all their net worth into their main tax free house, causing people to squat in gigantic houses that they don't need or want. I've seen this distorted behavior in people I know.

We should reward the person who lives in a normal house below their means, and buys an apartment as an investment (which is private capital into new construction that wouldn't have happened if they didn't do it), then rents it out, which increases stock on the rental market, and decreases rental yields.

If you want to tax ALL housing the same, including people's only house, then sure, go for it. Or better yet, tax all land ownership. Just don't distort people's behavior by making a special exception for their main house.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#14

Post by Steve16384 »

xtracto wrote: post #3

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My opinion is that governments should tax 2nd, 3rd and further housing so as to prevent people from accumulating residential buildings. If you want to live of your rents, buy a commercial or industrial building, speculate with that. But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary.

Several UK councils now charge double council tax (the monthly tax you pay for having a house) on second homes, exemptions notwithstanding.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#17

Post by cindyllm »

energy123 wrote: post #11
xtracto wrote: post #3

I wholeheartedly agree with this. My opinion is that governments should tax 2nd, 3rd and further housing so as to prevent people from accumulating residential buildings. If you want to live of your rents, buy a commercial or industrial building, speculate with that. But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary.

A bad idea in isolation, because it forces people to store all their net worth into their main tax free house, causing people to squat in gigantic houses that they don't need or want. I've seen this distorted behavior in people I know. We should reward the person who lives in a normal house below their means, and buys an apartment as an investment (which is private capital into new construction that wouldn't have hap…

[dead]

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#18

Post by ramon156 »

cassianoleal wrote: post #5
juliusceasar wrote: post #2

So is energy, food, water and space. And yet, all cost money.

False dichotomy. The fact that something costs money doesn't mean it has to become a speculative asset.

the argument here is that you cannot live without it. Everyone needs to have access to it

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#20

Post by toasty228 »

juliusceasar wrote: post #2

So is energy, food, water and space. And yet, all cost money.

That's why they should be non profit and nationalised. Nobody mind paying taxes for the good stuff, everybody mind paying taxes for bottom tier private companies to mess with the bare necessities and charge a premium fo it
Post reply on HN