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

The end of neighbours

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: The end of neighbours

#81

Post by onedev »

lotharbot wrote: post #75
onedev wrote: post #28

https://nextdoor.com/ is trying to help bring back that sense of community that this article talks about us losing. I think if something like this can help us get a cursory relationship with our neighbors, then that could potentially develop into something deeper and more meaningful and facilitate more offline interaction as well.

looks like it could be beautiful, but I'd really prefer being able to at least browse some of what's being talked about in my neighborhood before signing up.

The premise is that each neighborhood and the conversation contained within it is completely private to the neighbors.

Since every neighbor is completely verified, you can be 100% sure the person you're talking to is who they say they are. That's why you need to sign up in order to use the service.

Re: The end of neighbours

#82

Post by jseliger »

kghose wrote: post #59
design-of-homes wrote: post #25

A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can have a detrimental effect (I've seen it ha…

In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage.

In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage.

Boston's extensive housing development limits enable this behavior; in a functioning market we'd see supply rise to meet demand. See Yglesias's The Rent is Too Damn High (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO) for more.

Re: The end of neighbours

#83

Post by rahimnathwani »

cynicalkane wrote: post #79
rahimnathwani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

In the UK, there is no capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of your 'principal private residence', i.e. the place where you live. So, yes, non-resident property owners are already taxed differently.

Re: The end of neighbours

#84

Post by cynicalkane »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #83
cynicalkane wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

In the UK, there is no capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of your 'principal private residence', i.e. the place where you live. So, yes, non-resident property owners are already taxed differently.

If UK taxes work like US taxes, then the community in question doesn't capture this externality (it goes to the state/Feds), so that's small comfort to them.

Re: The end of neighbours

#85

Post by nsxwolf »

sliverstorm wrote: post #71
nsxwolf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know! I just get this deeply uncomfortable feeling when I see that I'm going to have to have some kind of unplanned interaction with them. I'm not a terribly shy person, there's just something about the neighbor encounter.

If you get to know them better, will you feel less anxious?

Possibly, but I think maybe it's that I like social interactions to be on my terms or anticipated ahead of time.

Re: The end of neighbours

#86

Post by sliverstorm »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #76
67726e wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parent post is not talking about some schmuck moving abroad for a few years. He is talking about the type of person who buys up property with the sole intention of making money by renting it off to others.

Where the hell else will rental properties come from?

Perhaps you buy a second home and have enough income to keep & rent your first home. Perhaps it is a vacation home for you, so you timeshare.

Re: The end of neighbours

#87

Post by rahimnathwani »

cynicalkane wrote: post #84
rahimnathwani wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, there is no capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of your 'principal private residence', i.e. the place where you live. So, yes, non-resident property owners are already taxed differently.

If UK taxes work like US taxes, then the community in question doesn't capture this externality (it goes to the state/Feds), so that's small comfort to them.

Taxing an externality can change behaviour, and the impact is not diminished even if you just burn the cash, rather than redistributing it.

(Unless you're taxing carbon emissions, in which case burning the cash would obviously contribute to the problem.)

Re: The end of neighbours

#88

Post by mahyarm »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #34
clarkmoody wrote: post #22

Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on all that about half disagree with. The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the…

I still think one of the causes of the federal over-expansion was to make Senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures. The point of the Senate was to create a check by the states on federal power. Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who the expansion benefits.

> Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who the expansion benefits.

Wouldn't they have the same incentive then?

Re: The end of neighbours

#89

Post by rahimnathwani »

cynicalkane wrote: post #79
rahimnathwani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

Studies [0][1] suggest that high levels of home ownership increase friction in the labour market, and thereby increase unemployment.

Perhaps we should penalize home ownership?

[0] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1197...

[1] http://www.iut.nu/Literature/2013/HomeOwnership_Unemployment...

Re: The end of neighbours

#90

Post by steanne »

cynicalkane wrote: post #79
rahimnathwani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

"The City of Philadelphia is offering a new tax relief program for homeowners called the Homestead Exemption, which will reduce the taxable assessed value used for calculation of homeowners’ Real Estate Tax bills by $30,000 (exemption amount may be subject to change) starting in Tax Year 2014. A person must simply own their home and live in it as their primary residence."
Post reply on HN