Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well rent doesn't create any wealth either, you're just paying monthly a landlord so he doesn't have to work. If you want to create value, you should make sure that housing prices (both renting and buying) stay low. This way not only wealth can go to other investments, but more people can take the risk to start a business if they don't have the risk to be unable to pay their rent or mortgage.
In the UK a mortgage if you can get one is way cheaper than renting for the equivalent property.
Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
371–380 of 413 posts
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
We never use them as credit card in France. It took me a loooong while to understand, when I lived abroad, why the cashier would always ask me a question when I used my card to pay. In fact I understood later that they were asking if I wanted to use debit or credit. And that felt really odd to me. And it still does. I still don't know what would have been the point to make a loan to buy a bag of potatoes, but well...…
The loan comes with a lot of benefits. (e.g. point rewards, protection, etc.). Why is it bad if you loan money if you can pay it back right away? I am sure you have asked your friends for money once when you were out and ran out of cash just to pay them back later that evening?
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no reason to favor individuals investing into an unproductive investment (property) over productive investments (stocks and bonds). I beg to differ. I think that real estate, like farming, has critical societal benefits that are worthwhile to develop and maintain. Namely, it is very difficult to raise a family of four in a mutual fund. Investing in a home may is absolutely "productive." See, there are sign…
5. In a time when wealth is centralizing as never before, investments in real estate distributes wealth locally. I think there are valid arguments against public policy to distribute wealth, but there is a societal logic here. I think this is a good point. Honestly, I don't know the economics of how property ownership is distributed in the US, but as a result, I can't say why we aren't all renting from a small handfu…
Now, you could argue those themselves have ownership distributed because they are public companies so therefore those mortgages are in fact benefiting shareholders, but banks own the majority of homes in America. And if you pay it off and don't pay taxes, the government does.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the benefit goes to the wealthy (at least, the portion of the population with the highest incomes; I'm not interested in arguing about whether households earning $200,000+ in high expense areas are wealthy or not). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/individual-in... For someone earning $500,000 a year, a $5,000 tax break is a $5,000 tax break, it isn't going to do much of anything to their behavio…
This is 100% a digression, but personally, I'm a fan of using "high-income" as a term in place of wealthy. I understand wealth to be having lots of assets: having a high income can cause you to be wealthy, but you can also be wealthy without currently having a high income. I'm very sensitive to this at the moment, because "wealthy" is used as a term when people talk about CA income taxes, which can be frustrating sin…
Just got my tax bill and I see I'm paying a percentage of my home value for things like school districts, etc.
Why I as a relatively new resident who has not benefited from these services yet is paying a disproportionate percentage of the taxes by a massive amount compared to people who have benefited from these services for decades while paying a pittance due to their locked prop 13 tax rates is beyond infuriating.
Doubly so when those long time owners have captured absolutely massive value through collecting rents and massive asset appreciation.
I'm all for paying my fair share for services in my community. This is not my fair share. At the very least it should be equal if not based on how long people have lived there.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One extreme downside of thinking of your home as an investment vehicle is how poorly it is diversified. It is almost exactly directly correlated to the local job market...and to macro trends like the MBS issues we saw in 2008. This is what I cannot understand about people who advocate buying homes in the United States for small-time investors - how can you not see this? How does it make any sense to divert almost a…
I don't think most Americans buy houses as investments. There are other reasons: You usually find yourself in a better neighborhood with fewer hassles if you buy vs. rent. Stocks and bonds aren't any better anymore--the bottom could drop out again anytime and leave you with half or less of what you previously had. We're in a crap storm of epic proportions in this country, but we avoid the reality of it.
That was my experience in Ann Arbor as well.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#376So in Germany, the interest on a mortgage is non tax deductible. The article doesn't mention it but I understand that property owners are also liable for capital gain tax if they hold the property less than 10 years. I think that makes sense. There is no reason to favor individuals investing into an unproductive investment (property) over productive investments (stocks and bonds, which enable companies to raise money…
For me, the motivation for owning a house isn't so much an investment as it is that renting and owning cost virtually the same, given that one has the means to get on the ladder.
I bought my first house (I'm 30) in north Germany about 18 months ago, we paid 515k and it was recently valued at 700k due to large improvements to the area, and the renovation of an old hospital site which is now luxury flats and houses, the mortgage (2.5% fixed-for-25-years) costs us about the same as renting a flat (100sqm) in the city, and we now have 200sqm of living space and 250 of garden to ourselves, we also now own, rather than rent a parking space (which always annoyed me more than it perhaps should have)
The capital gains tax is an interesting point, given the rent we were previously paying at 1800/month (warm == includes some bills) we'd have been over 20k/year out of pocket just by maintaining the renting status-quo. My wife and I discussed whether it was the perfect house for us, whether we wanted to take a risk on living 20min north (metro) of the city, rather than 5 minutes to the west, and whether waiting 2/3 years was justifiable, we poured about 70k of our savings into legal fees, ground-tax and the deposit for the property, we figured that sitting on our hands for 2-3 years could cost us essentially the same.
Naturally one can't write-off the convenience of renting and being able to terminate a contract and simply move, but I have almost the same freedom to rent out my house should I choose not to live there anymore, although the rental market for houses ~20 min north of the city will make it tricky to cover the cost, then keeping the house turns into a question of eating the capital gains tax, or paying out of pocket a few hundred euros per month to make the difference. I also don't have to pay €4k for a "Markler" to help me find a flat, and fax me a contract, a rather shameful act that persists in Germany, even if you do all the work yourself, the Marker can still get their commission, legally speaking, they often do deals to prevent you pushing the issue to the courts.
Given the duration of my mortgage, the low (fixed) rate, I can look forward to the last 15 years of my useful working career being rent and mortgage free, which might be a bit too late to build a nest-egg, but it's certainly better than being at the mercy of ever-increasing rental rates in an ever-expanding city. (in my opinion)
I think it might be fair to close by saying that Germans are typically fiscally risk-averse, and huge debt, variable rate mortgages, and the uncertainness about maintenance and insurance might be as big a driver as anything else. There's also the cultural shift away from generational houses (think "Home Alone") where many generations live together longer term, I think this is significant.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but there's a reason why the crappy 2br costs as much as your house. That reason might not appeal to you, but it exists and has a specific monetary value.
Could you explain the reason?
Not to knock your choice, but many people including myself would never consider living there.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your future mobility to pursue jobs in other cities, becoming significantly constrained Perhaps the idea of people who haven't adopted this is that, unless they like doing so, humans should not have to live like nomads moving here and there to pursue this or that financial opportunity, but instead should be allowed to grow roots in some place, help shape it and improve it, connect with their neighbors, etc.
Nobody is forcing anyone to move or "live like a nomad." But why take steps that will make it much much harder for you to change your mind later? 5 years from now, if you've been unemployed for a long time and a great job opportunity opens up in a city 2 hours away, you may realize that moving 2 hours away in exchange for a paycheck, is a perfectly valid choice to make.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you do with your old oil?
Not gp, but I store the old oil in a closed can, back of the shed. While usually there's a waste management charge for oils, in Finland there are occasional events when it's free to deliver oils and whatnot. So I take the few cans then.
Re: Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying stock on the open market also doesn't create any job for anyone, it just transfers wealth to the hands of the seller. Basically, unless you are investing in an IPO, the company doesn't see a dime from the ongoing trading of it's stock. So the vast majority of investors are not creating jobs by buying stock. Similarly, most bond investors are not buying new issue bonds, they are buying bonds from the current ow…
Companies often issue common stock long after IPO. Tesla famously did this earlier this year in order to finance an accelerated release schedule for the Model 3. Companies undergoing temporary financial trouble also issue common stock. The major banks issued large amounts of common stock during the 2008 financial crisis. Most have not yet repurchased the issued stock. Technically and in the extremely specific case, y…
An existing company making a new issue is kind of unusual because it dilutes the value of existing shares which is harmful to existing shareholders. generally a bad thing.
Selling Treasury stock does get new cash in the hands of the company, but usually that was because at some point the company had excess cash and invested it in it's own shares in the form of a buyback, less often the company is still holding shares from it's own IPO. It later needs the cash and re-sells the stock, hopefully at a better price.
I would argue though that the day to day trading of common stock on the open market is the more general rule not a "extremely specific case". Normally, if I go to make a trade in my account, it is not a new issue and would be a coincidence if it was at the time a company was selling treasury stock.
no argument in stock liquidity being a measure of confidence, but not really to the point I was addressing.