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

New US homeownership measure puts people first

minneapolisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#341

Post by pbhjpbhj »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #173
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point appears to be that each person should only look after their own interests? Is that your intent in posting it? Many of us, my siblings and our families inclusive, owe our lives to socialised medicine.

I think it's more that communism appeals to those that didn't really made it or worked for what they have. > Many of us, my siblings and our families inclusive, owe our lives to socialised medicine. commonly mistaken with communism, yes. Country having strong social services and caring about their citizens is not the same as communism.

Social medicine was a contrast to a quote that appeared to promote individualism

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#342

Post by therealdrag0 »

pixl97 wrote: post #257
anal_reactor wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've posted it already, but at least in my country (Netherlands) it seems like the problem isn't the lack of housing, but lack of marriages. If people ages 30-60 married each other at the rate they used to in 60's, then there would be no housing crisis. The statistic that doesn't compute for me is how is it possible that we're having a housing crisis while at the same time we have historically low average number of p…

>we have historically low average number of people per house. I'd like to see the actual statistics method used to calculate that. Saying it's marriages alone just doesn't past the smell test for me. Just because people aren't married doesn't mean they don't live together and the number of unmarried people living together is higher than ever. What makes far more sense is the number of children people have has fallen…

People living together out of necessity (roommates) still has the optics of a housing crisis of those people wish they didn’t live together. This is the opposite for couples who want to live together.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#343

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bell-cot wrote: post #161
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point appears to be that each person should only look after their own interests? Is that your intent in posting it? Many of us, my siblings and our families inclusive, owe our lives to socialised medicine.

> His point appears... No, Levit said that in 1948, when Americans were vastly better-connected (socially) than today, "Godless Communism" was their #1 fear, and everybody was aware of communism's easy appeal to those who felt dispossessed. I'd read the quote as a clever way to say "let me sell millions of cheap houses to Americans, and you'll never have to worry about the commies".

Thanks for expanding on the quote with some context, appreciated.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#344

Post by FloatArtifact »

itake wrote: post #266
FloatArtifact wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs.

> I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs.

That's a good point, and it's why I qualified my statement by saying under a certain income. You say high density as if it's a bad thing.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#345

Post by FloatArtifact »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #284
all2 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property tax is theft. By applying a tax to a _thing_ that someone owns, you are saying 'actually, this thing you have is mine, and if you don't pay me for the privilege of having it, I will take it away from you'.

Property tax pays for maintaining the utilities and services connected to the property. If you buy land that is completely unconnected from public services, you will find that the corresponding property taxes are extremely low. I've had annual property taxes as low as $1/acre.

For context, mine are close to 3 grand a year. For plot, just big enough to fit the home and a little yard in town

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#346

Post by pibaker »

jmyeet wrote: post #275
ecshafer wrote: post #192

Housing can not be a viable asset class, or it will continue to rise in prices. Step 1 is Land Value Taxes. Step 2 is remove/greatly reduce zoning, allow construction and streamline the process. If you allow density, building up, and incentivize it, then it will be built. Developers spend tens of thousands of dollars in permits and interest payments before they can put a shovel in the ground. Being a landlord isn't r…

We shouldn't allow people to hoard housing and land. That’s the core problem here. It should be super expensive to own more than one property. I refer people to the Housing Theory of Everything [1]. I disagree with the Ultra-YIMBYs who believe in removing all zoning and regulation. If you do that, you get Houston. Because that's what Houston is. What we need is to prioritize living over investment returns in housing.…

I don't know why people say Houston is unregulated. Minimum parking requirement is a huge factor in any kind of housing development and Houston has one.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#347

Post by pibaker »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #45
GodelNumbering wrote: post #33

There was a youtube video sometime ago that argued about how life has vastly improved in every single aspect (with numbers about how 'stuff' has gotten universally more affordable), only housing has gotten more expensive relative to income and how that proves we have a better quality of life because of that. It got me thinking that maybe the home ownership, or having a place you can call yours, disproportionately aff…

Singapore is surveyed as either the happiest or second-happiest country in Asia (IIRC), with at one point a >95% homeownership rate due to government policy (although I believe that's now closer to 90%, in part due to foreign immigration?). It seems self-evident that having a home is somewhere on the order of 1000000x more important than being able to buy lots of cheap junk that barely matters.

Singapore is also a city state and has a land and housing policy that can't be easily replicated elsewhere. Tell Americans they will be shoved into government built high rises with racial quota and see what happens.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#348

Post by all2 »

pandaman wrote: post #336
all2 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. This ignores the Constitution and the acknowledgement of 'inalienable rights'. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure…

I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted? Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right? Also, how theft would be even possible if property rights had been unalienable? If someone stole from you and…

I know this is a facetious dismissal, but I'll try to respond anyway.

> I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted?

Correct.

> Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right?

I'm not advocating for breaking laws, regulations, or rules of the nation I live in.

> Also, how theft would be even possible if property rights had been unalienable? If someone stole from you and you retained your property rights you could just keep enjoying your property and exclude the thief from your property as the right entitles you.

This is less about the pragmatics of 'possession' and its intricacies (the old adage 'possession is 9/10s of the law' is relevant here), and more about the policies of the governments that rule, and ultimately that answer to the people they rule.

If I am advocating for anything, it is change in laws and the appropriate limits on government to limit the levying of taxes on possessed things. In this case, land.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#349

Post by pandaman »

all2 wrote: post #348
pandaman wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted? Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right? Also, how theft would be even possible if property rights had been unalienable? If someone stole from you and…

I know this is a facetious dismissal, but I'll try to respond anyway. > I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted? Correct. > Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right? I'm not advocating for brea…

Just like you read your unalienable property rights from the Declaration of Independence you seem to be reading a facetious dismissal from a very simple and factual commentary on your beliefs. This is probably why you did not address anything.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#350

Post by BeetleB »

CalRobert wrote: post #212
kakacik wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Health care, housing, and education In Europe its only housing, and still proportionally cheaper than what US has, often in higher quality for older homes (bricks / concrete vs cheap creaky wooden houses). The idea of saving massive amounts for my kids potential university studies is ridiculous to me. Same for any health issue. I mean any health issue as long as I can work, and then social state takes over (that is…

Concrete houses suck and Europeans need to get off their high house about them. I own a concrete brick house in Europe and I’d strongly prefer a wooden American one. It’s hard to insulate, hard to alter, uglier, has a terrible embodied carbon footprint, has too much thermal mass, and alterations that would make it more livable (like having eaves) are illegal.

On the flip side, window AC's are really effective at cooling the single room they're in.

In the wooden house I have, I just can't get the room that cool if the temperature is in the 90's, because the internal walls provide very little insulation. It was trivial when I lived in concrete buildings. It's a ridiculous waste to have to use central air conditioning to cool a whole house when I really just need to cool 1-2 rooms.

Post reply on HN