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

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#51

Post by jackb4040 »

ch4s3 wrote: post #30
rvz wrote: 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?

You're so conditioned against socialism that the only life plans you will consider are gambling your life's savings on a speculative asset, or working until you die. Not every country is constrained to these 2 options. Many of them would love for you to visit.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#52

Post by flowerthoughts »

PLenz wrote: post #43
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.

This is an indirect way to get at what we really need: a wealth tax. Don't treat the symptom, treat the disease.

Or unoccupancy tax. Forcing landlords to let at the price renters are willing to give will probably do some to reduce rent levels.

Same goes for commercial, but in that case, I'd even suggest forefeiture if you are not reducing requested rent within a year of vacancy. Let someone else take over if you overspent.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#54

Post by sidewndr46 »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #32
mothballed wrote: post #19

Allow anyone to build a shack and shit into a hole on any postage stamp size of land they could get, and it would be far more affordable.

Yep, building codes are a double edged sword. Yes, they make life better for housed people and avoid streets looking like an India-esque mess of exposed wiring and open sewers. But they also establish a minimum bar to _be_ housed. If you can’t afford a (by global standards) very nice home, you will be on the streets.

This leads to my long running joke about Austin: in Austin everyone can afford their own house. Otherwise you don't live here.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#55

Post by Ntrails »

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…

> people to squat in gigantic houses that they don't need

In the Uk, at least, stamp duty is an obvious and infuriating driver of either buying big early or never downsizing. I did the former, parents do the latter.

Easy to solve the incentive problem yet we never will

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#56

Post by sidewndr46 »

cestith wrote: post #45
rogerrogerr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Money” is just a way to say “people’s time and resources.”

In the US economy and much of the rest of the world, money is decreasingly tied to the time or resources of people. It is increasingly tied to the money, market capture, and regulatory capture of corporations that specialize in finance rather than producing goods.

Isn't that the point of economics? If you're just going to tie money to something obvious, you don't need economics.

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#57

Post by Markoff »

rvz wrote: 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.

that would be funny considering China is closer to economic collapse than west considering their zero inflation or salary growth for years and raising youth unemployment, I visited after 9 years since I moved away, salaries and prices in restaurants are pretty much same as 9 years ago, so much for growth, they are going for Japanese way...

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#58

Post by alkonaut »

Where mortgage interest is a deductible expense (usually the case if savings interest is a taxable income) then one simple fix is to limit that to one home. Second homes or homes bought in speculation using borrowed money are at least less attractive then.

Also for land tax and similar: raise them by a lot and use that money to pay for a tax-exemption for one home

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#59

Post by jkingsbery »

rvz wrote: 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.

Within a few years Xi coined this phrase, China began having a massive real estate sector problem due in large part to speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_sector_crisis... . Part of this speculation (which the article I cite talks about) was due to private Chinese organizations, but it's also in part due to the Chinese government's decisions to overbuild in order to drive urbanization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoccupied_developments_in_...).

The intentions of a government aren't enough. You need feedback systems. China doesn't have effective feedback systems, because the CCP actively destroys them. No one is "turning towards China" - they have negative net migration since 1968 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?locations=C...).

Re: Houses are for living, not for speculation

#60

Post by mherkender »

mothballed wrote: post #19

Allow anyone to build a shack and shit into a hole on any postage stamp size of land they could get, and it would be far more affordable.

You can find places like that all over the world. They're slums.

Maybe regulations put too much burden on homeownership but slums create huge issues as well. Basic plumbing shouldn't be taken for granted.

Post reply on HN