501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxes on rental income are already more than capital gains tax rates.
Then they need to be at least doubled, and funneled into individual owner-occupied housing subsidies.
People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem. Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price infla…
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence. I hear this argument a lot and always wonder if the causal direction is flipped: people use housing as an investment because it’s scarce, not that it’s scarce because it’s used as an investment. If there weren’t so many restrictions on building, the supply would grow to meet the demand…
Now, why dont governments better fund those departments and emphasize faster throughput? Well, let's ask their main constituents - who are largely homeowners and companies in the industry - whether they'd like to dedicate more taxes to a service that would speed up construction and drop their housing prices.
Note US GDP looks great until you realise that it is in dollars whose nominal purchasing power is diminishing. There is no better was of seeing this than in the price of housing.
So let me explain somethign that is often misconstrued about leftist sentiment, be in socialism or whatever: leftists generally make the distinction between personal property and private property.
Private property is what we have now. We have wealthy landlords buying up houses to drive up prices. We have single homeowners who think their home value is going up so that's good for them so they vote for these policies. A leftist position is that you're entitled to own your personal residence but there's next to no landlording. Housing is a basic human need. The only way to provide it in a sustainable way is with social housing. For example, the majority of housing in Vienna is social housing.
The UK came really close last century to ending landlording [1] (ie councils simply bought houses from landlords who wanted out).
But if you think about it: there's no way your $200k turns into a $600k house without that money coming from somewhere. You're taking it from the next generation.
Capitalism loves this because a) a bunch of capital owners become even wealthier and b) debt-laden workers and workers who will take any jobs they can get (ie it suppresses wages).
In the 1990s, the average house price in London was ~70k pounds. Now it's over 700k.
Pretty much everything bad about modern society can be traced back to private property, be it intellectual property, housing or whatever.
People need to realize that if your house triples in value, you haven't really gained anything. If you sell it, what now? You still have to live somewhere. That means higher rents or buying an equivalently priced home. Or downsizing or moving overseas. This is why housing is unlike other assets.
we, as a society, have decided to prioritize generational wealth from landlording by literally killing people by denying them housing.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-...
Yes, and I think there is some truth to the statement that the older generations are stealing from the younger generations, whatever the underlying financial/technical explanation may be. The game is rigged. But that should be no surprise. People who enter a game of Monopoly after a few rounds have been played know that they will be swimming against a strong current. Our financial systems are unfair and broken.
We're born in a year we didn't choose to parents we didn't pick with talent we didn't earn with intelligence we don't deserve with environmental influences we can't control.
The game is Texas Hold em. Play your cards. Bluff if you must. Press if you can. Go all in when you can leverage.
I recently got to know a gentleman quite like myself. His parents and upbringing are quite the same. His father took risks. Mine did not. He's got a million dollar business that he took over. With respect, I don't think he would be any better than me without his father's risk and resources.
I was briefly jealous. Then I realized I was exactly in his father's position. I'm taking risks and building something for my kids. He's one generation ahead of me.
You can get upset about the game or play it.
I took a risk a week ago. Turned $500 into $11,000 with a little effort. My skills let me analyze stuff quickly. I discovered a pump and dump bot network. It turns out I correctly matched the entry and exit signals to the bots chatter.
If i can validate this next week, I will pay off my house in a few weeks.
People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem. Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price infla…
>Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? Do they all have zoning, urban planning requirements, and restrictions on what landowners can do with their property? Yes? This isn't a complicated issue, this is 100% a self inflicted "problem" that can be solved with the stroke of a pen. Pro-tip: abolish al…
People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem. Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price infla…
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence. I hear this argument a lot and always wonder if the causal direction is flipped: people use housing as an investment because it’s scarce, not that it’s scarce because it’s used as an investment. If there weren’t so many restrictions on building, the supply would grow to meet the demand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two more causes: 1. People have mortgages with very low interest rates. If they sell the home, they give up that cheap mortgage for a much higher mortgage interest rate with the next home. So, they stay. 2. The capital gains tax exemption of $500,000 has not risen with inflation. Selling your appreciated home will result in a large tax bill. It makes sense to sit in the home until you die, then it gets a basis boost…
Another cause: people live until an older age.
The problem is lack of supply vs demand. In 2022,England and Wales: - built 254000 homes[0] - had 745,000 people immigrate (net)[1] - had 600000 people turn 21[2] - had 577160 people die[3] If you gain a load of people, far more than you increased dwellings for, prices will go up and dwelling size will go down. It's not particularly complicated. [0] https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/357082-0 [1] http…
There were an estimated 28.1 million households in the UK in 2021, an increase of 6.3% over the previous 10 years. [0]
and:
The UK population at mid-year 2021 was estimated to be 67.0 million, an increase of 3.7 million (5.9%) on the population in mid-2011.[1]
So the number of UK households increased by slightly more than the population between 2011 and 2021.
[0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
[1]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree building housing is a symptom, and not the core problem. But I'm skeptical that increasing building or density would actually lower housing costs. If that were true, high dense cities like Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, or Hong Kong would have much lower cost housing. Housing more people in a concentrated area creates more demand for services, which creates more demand for housing which jacks up prices. Pac…
Beijing, Tokyo and Singapore are not that expensive to live in. Especially if you're renting. Hong Kong has all sorts of crazy building restrictions and is a different story
I hear Shanghai is much worse, but never lived there before.