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

The end of neighbours

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: The end of neighbours

#111

Post by wbillingsley »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #83
cynicalkane wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

In the UK, there is no capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of your 'principal private residence', i.e. the place where you live. So, yes, non-resident property owners are already taxed differently.

CGT only applies on the sale of the property. As the property value rises, buy-to-let landlords will often use the equity generated to leverage another loan on another buy-to-let property, rather than sell the first property. So as they keep on collecting properties, they're not paying CGT because they aren't selling.

Especially as CGT is typically lower than income tax, so investors would prefer capital gains over rental profit. (And if their rentals are generating profit, might be tempted to buy more rentals that are not profitable but rising in capital value, so that their rental profit is lower but capital gains are higher).

You hear stories of investors who keep on acquiring and end up with dozens of buy-to-let properties and are leveraged up to the hilt.

Bradford & Bingley, which was the UK's buy-to-let mortgage specialist, was particularly hard hit by the GFC.

Re: The end of neighbours

#112

Post by sliverstorm »

nine_k wrote: post #103
sliverstorm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not supposed to be a natural connection. But it's much easier to kill time with people who live close by. I don't know about you, but I find watching a movie or sitting around a fire with my neighbors far more therapeutic than text messaging on my phone.

You have time and have nothing better to do with it than to kill it? My condolences. Try having kids; it rids you of free time quite well! :) Really, with current online life, people have contact less with random strangers and more with like-minded or otherwise interesting individuals. If in an [abstract] countryside you have to talk to you neighbors because there's no one else around, on the Internet the choice is w…

You miss the point. I'd rather share a fire with living people, than a glowing screen. Even if those people are less witty than the glowing screen.

Not to mention the internet tends to form echo chambers. It's good to meet people who are not like-minded...

Re: The end of neighbours

#113

Post by wbillingsley »

The article seriously misrepresents the Australian sociologist and the community response to the Queensland floods.

Here's the Australian sociologist's article (you can find both quotes in the piece, but quite out of context): http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lendin...

The sociologist describes the community response to the floods as

   "the overwhelming message that flowed from events like the 
    floods in Queensland and Victoria last year was one of neighbours,
    friends and even strangers rallying to assist flooded residents in 
    their hour of need

    As the waters rose, neighbours banded together to sandbag each others’ 
    homes and move possessions to higher ground. Once they receded, 
    information, food, homes and equipment were freely shared. Observers 
    lauded the spirit of community that prevailed.

    So, why are neighbours still there when needed even if their noise, 
    smells and habits are cause for complaint the rest of the time?"
But what does Brian Bethune summarise the article as?

   "An Australian sociologist investigating community responses in the 
    wake of the 2011 floods in Queensland found relations in “a precarious 
    balance”; neighbours were hesitant to intrude even in emergencies—leading 
    the scholar to conclude that “we are less likely than ever to know” our 
    neighbours."
Which is quite the opposite. The sociologist was investigating the contrast -- a tremendous community response in an emergency, when we're more private than ever the rest of the time. But Brian Bethune make it sound like she was bemoaning a poor community response to an emergency.

Re: The end of neighbours

#114

Post by shutupalready »

nsxwolf wrote: post #45
scoofy wrote: post #41

Good to see they finally point the finger at what is fairly certainly the culprit: the automobile. When i lived in NYC, i knew most of my neighbors. Why? because we literally bumped into each other coming in and out of the building. When you have a common destination (subway, bus, market, etc), it's nice to have someone to chat with, but when your commute is in an automobile, you never get a chance to ask. Living roo…

My suburban neighborhood consists of single family homes on roughly quarter-acre lots. I "bump in" to my neighbors a lot when we're in our front yards. But I hate the "stop and chat", so when I see a neighbor outside I employ the following strategies to avoid neighbor contact: - Driving into the garage and lowering the garage door even when I really wanted to park in the driveway - Peeking through blinds to see when…

When I worked a few months in Silicon Valley, I noticed something similar there:

There's a McDonalds in an area dominated by software and engineering companies. At lunch, people would go through the drive-thru, park in the McDonalds' parking lot, and eat in their cars. The parking lot was full; the large dining area inside was usually empty.

The saddest part is that I myself started doing the same thing after a while. Although Silicon Valley is the center of the universe for my profession, I found that it is also a lonely experience compared to other cities/countries.

Re: The end of neighbours

#115

Post by tonyedgecombe »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #89
cynicalkane wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

Studies [0][1] suggest that high levels of home ownership increase friction in the labour market, and thereby increase unemployment. Perhaps we should penalize home ownership? [0] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1197... [1] http://www.iut.nu/Literature/2013/HomeOwnership_Unemployment...

Jobs aren't everything.

Re: The end of neighbours

#116

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #76
67726e wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parent post is not talking about some schmuck moving abroad for a few years. He is talking about the type of person who buys up property with the sole intention of making money by renting it off to others.

Where the hell else will rental properties come from?

I think we would be better off with more businesses and less private landlords in the UK. The current situation doesn't work very well for many tenants.

Re: The end of neighbours

#117

Post by DanBC »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #116
Sophistifunk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the hell else will rental properties come from?

I think we would be better off with more businesses and less private landlords in the UK. The current situation doesn't work very well for many tenants.

How do you define "business"? BtL landlords with a property portfolio are businesses.

Excluding those there are very few businesses that rent homes. The few that exist work at the lower end renting social housing.

There have been severe criticisms of business-landlords. I'm trying to find some cites but business landlords have been implicated in poor maintainence, leading to deaths from carbon monoxide.

Letting agents don't own the properties, they just handle the details for the landlords.

Re: The end of neighbours

#118

Post by gohrt »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #115
rahimnathwani wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies [0][1] suggest that high levels of home ownership increase friction in the labour market, and thereby increase unemployment. Perhaps we should penalize home ownership? [0] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1197... [1] http://www.iut.nu/Literature/2013/HomeOwnership_Unemployment...

Jobs aren't everything.

Eating isn't everything.

Re: The end of neighbours

#119

Post by gohrt »

cynicalkane wrote: post #79
rahimnathwani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

It's quite common in USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_exemption

Re: The end of neighbours

#120

Post by nroets »

cynicalkane wrote: post #79
rahimnathwani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

Buy-to-let is penalized because rental income is taxable. (As a thought experiment just consider the extra income tax liability if two owner-occupiers with identical houses started renting from each other).

This is on top of the fact that CGT applies to non primary residences in the UK and other countries (as rahimnathwani mentioned).

Post reply on HN