Live data from Hacker News

Houses are for living, not for speculation

en.wikipedia.org

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#22
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…

> store all their net worth into their main tax free house

If you take speculation out of the housing market, storing net worth in your main house becomes a lot less attractive.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What does that add in the context of the OP?

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#24
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.

In theory I agree with everything but I’ll point out that:

> But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary

is political suicide, because you’re giving every voter with existing property a haircut on money they believe they already have, that they’ve usually borrowed to buy, and that they’ve financially planned on appreciating. Per Jean-Claude Juncker, “ We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#25
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.

I am against "speculation" on any sort of real estate. On other hand I am not against real estate investments. And I don't think single family housing deserves any kind of special treatment.

I see no reason why someone providing capital to build a building and then renting it out to cover cost of that capital, maintenance and building cost is unreasonable or bad thing.

Issue really is when market is manipulated to keep prices going up beyond inflation or normal changes in demand. That really ruins everything. Real estate shouldn't really appreciate at all over time beyond inflation.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#27
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…

Why would someone want all their net worth in real estate properties rather than diversify with other investments, which if they wanted to could also still include the real estate sector?

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that increasing the taxes would just lead to higher rents, right?

Which would favour people with fewer houses, which don't have to pay the increased taxes and so their rents could be lower. So the 2nd, 3rd house taxes could be relatively low but for the 10th they would be ginormous.

There are very few people with that many houses anyway.

These people do not affect rents in any meaningful way.

> Small investors who owned between one and five properties held 87% of the single-family homes owned by investors; those owning six to 10 properties owned another 4%

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/real-estate-investo...

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#29
post #25
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.

I am against "speculation" on any sort of real estate. On other hand I am not against real estate investments. And I don't think single family housing deserves any kind of special treatment. I see no reason why someone providing capital to build a building and then renting it out to cover cost of that capital, maintenance and building cost is unreasonable or bad thing. Issue really is when market is manipulated to ke…

Lets say a transaction has 2 parties that want to extract value (builder, buyer) if there are 3 parties now everyone needs to make money. (builder, speculator, buyer) middle mans ALWAYS increase prices and add little to no value to the actual GDP of a country. They do offer financing, but a financing value of lets say 500k vs a construction value of 500k the construction value has more weight because it is fully finanical vlaue. the 500k investment might be part of a money multiplier which puts strain on the financial system. Speculators ALWAYS drive up prices. Just look at any field Private equity has touched.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#30
post #7

This is probably the reason why Gen Z is turning towards China and will eventually come out on top if a economic collapse in the west were to happen.

So the Chinese government making retirement unaffordable, making it impossible to invest in equities, under funding pensions, and then attacking the last thing people can invest in for retirement savings is what won Gen Z?
Post reply on HN