61–70 of 1001 posts
This could be an interesting topic but a rant about cabals and the Great Reset is probably not the right starting point.
I really wish we'd get some innovation in the housing market. 3D printing of houses or something could be epic. "Just" disrupt the current construction companies... It's clear they can't keep up with the demand right now.
Lack of housing is by policy. By ensuring there are not enough houses ensures there is more demand than supply, which means higher housing prices, which means higher mortgages. The mortgage market is based on rising house prices. The banking industry is based on the mortgage industry. Low house prices, would mean a falling mortgage market, which means a banking crises. Given that the banking cartel has more influence on politicians than the populous, we have this current state of affairs.
Remember, in the 1950s a new build home would cost about 1 years salary. Now one year's salary might only buy a nice car. Building technology hasn't gotten worse, it's much better and cheaper. It's not the construction companies that need disrupting.
Edit: Also I should say that that was the state of affairs until just recently. This recent move by Blackrock and the like is the prelude to massive inflation. They are abandoning paper assets (cash, equities etc) and investing in hard assets like housing, farmland and commodities.
This hurts people who already own houses, too - property taxes are assessed on the appraised value of the home, which is a function of what the similarly-sized houses in your area sold for most recently. My property taxes have increased 10% every year for the past several years (and it would have been more if not for a legislative 10% annual cap). I worry that there will come a day when I've paid off my mortgage but…
Arkansas has a petition going around right now to axe property taxes completely. I believe other states do not have property taxes already as well.
[1] https://learn.roofstock.com/blog/states-without-property-tax
If only so many people didn't treat land and houses like investments, there wouldn't be such a disastrous hoarding problem. Henry George's Land Value Tax [1][2] seems like an obvious economic fix that would require a large fraction of the population to change how they think about land and natural resources, but most of them are invested in such a way (i.e. owning multiple houses on multiple parcels of land, often wit…
- Billboard posted in an empty lot, Rockford Illinois, 1914
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would an entity trying to maximize profits pay an extra 20-50% to purchase an illiquid asset?
Once you own all housing, what's to stop you from increasing rents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property taxes do not have to go up because the assessment goes up. I have had assessments go up, but the tax rate go down because the town did not increase its budget. In the long run it probably will though, since higher land values will probably cause increases in wages and other costs. But it does not have to be proportionally as much as the land value increase.
The government has a claim to your property. The government is strongly influenced by lobbyists. The government is also gerrymandered. The government always needs more money. Why would your property taxes not continue to go up endlessly?
IIUC, you're arguing that we should expect that ^^^ outcome, because of the political/economic dynamics you mentioned earlier.
My understanding is that, except in towns/cities undergoing gentrification, U.S. municipal property taxes are pretty constant (modulo inflation).
So it sounds like the outcome predicted by that theory probably isn't happening. Wouldn't this cast doubt on the theory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property taxes do not have to go up because the assessment goes up. I have had assessments go up, but the tax rate go down because the town did not increase its budget. In the long run it probably will though, since higher land values will probably cause increases in wages and other costs. But it does not have to be proportionally as much as the land value increase.
The government has a claim to your property. The government is strongly influenced by lobbyists. The government is also gerrymandered. The government always needs more money. Why would your property taxes not continue to go up endlessly?
In fact the evidence is that property taxes don’t go up endlessly they are actually highly stable when adjusted for inflation. Further many states don’t have property tax, or expressly cap them.
Finally everyone always needs more money, individual and companies included. Why should government be any different. Governments are just human organizations like any other. They just have a different role and responsibility.
This hurts people who already own houses, too - property taxes are assessed on the appraised value of the home, which is a function of what the similarly-sized houses in your area sold for most recently. My property taxes have increased 10% every year for the past several years (and it would have been more if not for a legislative 10% annual cap). I worry that there will come a day when I've paid off my mortgage but…
If you don't have cash, take out a small mortgage on the house to pay the property taxes. You'll still come out ahead in the end.
This is what happens when you keep printing money and keep mortgage rates incredibly low. All that money's gotta go somewhere. Hey, at least the CPI isn't going up right? Its only the most expensive thing in most people's lives that has doubled in cost in about 10 years. Same thing for stock prices, and slowly other commodity prices are catching up as well. Non-homeowners are being shafted by this fed/ecb policy. Eve…
> Its only the most expensive thing in most people's lives that has doubled in cost in about 10 years. Most people pay for housing by monthly payments, making the nominal value of the house irrelevant if the monthly payment stays the same. Further, you should consider the home owner's "basket of goods" to include the hypothetical rent they'd be paying for an equivalent house. Their mortgage payments and home ownershi…
I really dont understand the logic of being OK with paying double for a house, just because the buyer can sell it for the same amount (or higher) afterwards.
I could purchase a 150m2 house with my salary a decade ago. Now I could find a 75m2 house that would be too expensive for me. I dont care about being able to sell the house for more money afterwards, it doesn't matter, because I have to live somewhere anyways. So any profits gained will (probably) be factored into the purchase price of the next house I'm buying.