No one who owns a home would vote for them.
It’s not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k.
Not worth it at all.
A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else’s homes, but by a lot less.
Housing should not be an investment. They didn’t lose anything except speculated value which comes at the cost of locking others out from the ability to own their own home. In fact, those morons who care so much about “muh investment” are also costing themselves through higher property taxes and ridiculous house prices they’d have to face if they ever have to move.
There are quite a few people who say they wouldn’t be able to afford the house they have now if they had to finance it at today’s prices and interest rates. How can they realize the capital gains on such an “investment” if they don’t own more than one home? They still have to live somewhere.
When housing is not an investment, you have far less incentive to improve or maintain the land you are on because you don’t own it and whatever you do may be met with hostility.
I think the problem isn’t with home ownership, it’s with unaffordability perpetuated by private equity and how our culture doesn’t see property ownership as a human right but instead as a privilege.
If we made residential property ownership illegal for businesses and limited individual property ownership to say, 5 properties, we’d all be better off. Rich people should be free to own places but they shouldn’t be able to profit off of it so much they choke out the middle class and play fucking monopoly with everyone’s lives.
God yes. I feel like I scratched the surface here because private equity is the problem but it gets so much weirder and worse with speculative markets.
Everyone now owns wherever they are living. Current owner residents get reimbursed via taxes for their current equity over a period of time. People and government win, corporations take losses on investments and probably come out ahead anyway.
Obviously an oversimplified idea, but I think we should be asking “How can we make this happen?” more often than dismissing outright.
What I’m proposing you wouldn’t lose the 300k because you still have your house and you’ll get the 300k back over time. And yes taxes don’t come out of thin air, but the whole system needs plenty of overhauling.
Do you have a house though? Or are you still on a mortgage and now you’re in negative equity, get booted out and still have to pay the debt while being homeless?
Lots of people buy homes as an investment, its not only large corporations that do this, and if someone bought a home expecting that when they sell it they will get most of their money back, or even a profit on it, they would really be harmed by a government guaranteeing effectively free housing for all.
If you want such a world to exist, it can’t be done instantly for sure
Profit or loss on real estate speculation should no more guide government policy than profit or loss on soy futures or baseball card investments. You want to use housing as an investment, you have to accept risk like any other investment.
Homeowners already are subsidized with mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions, something renters do not benefit from. Government housing policy should be crafted to support strong, stable, healthy communities.
You need to consider that people need somewhere to live. So, if your only house doubles in value, you generally can’t make use of this fact to get more goods and/or services, since every other house has likely also doubled in value. The only way you can get to these gains is if you’re willing to trade down in some way. For example, you could move to a rural area, where housing is cheaper, or you could move into a smaller home. If you’re unwilling to do any those things, your house becoming more valuable is not that useful. (Unless of course the increase in value is due to the land your house is on getting better in some way. This only concerns cases were your house gets more valuable due to increasing scarcity). In fact, since property taxes exists, you might end up getting priced out of your own house.
you leave individuals who own up to, say, 3 houses alone and start massively taxing anything further. 4+ house voting bloc can suck a dick. corporations will be forced to rent at obscenely low rates to the point that they will be stupid not to sell. they have a minimum tenant percentage to make sure they’re not hoarding, and have mandatory government evaluation for any sale. fail to do any of this for 60 days and your properties now belong to the people.
This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get ‘paid’ by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.
I think the poster is going by the mistaken assumption that there isn’t enough housing so they’re looking for incentives to increase supply. which is not the issue.
If you wanted bread to be cheaper, you would increase the supply of bread.
If you want homes to be cheaper, increase the amount of homes.
It might not be the issue at hand, but it definitely is a valid solution.
Ideally, if one company charged too much for rent, the person living there could move to another place owned by a different company that would charge cheaper rent, in an effort to take business from the first company.
The issue arrives when monopolies control the majority of homes, but those monopolies can be broken much more easily if the cost of buying homes went down (from an increased supply of them) and the barrier to entry of new homeowners who want to rent went down. That would increase competition and would eliminate these monopolies.
unfortunately in reality that doesn’t happen in the market. you can force it though. the government can she should build as many houses as necessary, relatively high quality and super affordable if not free, especially since there’s no profit motive. make the houses owned by corporations pointless to the point that they’re forced to compete with a non-profit housing entity funded by the public.
and if they don’t do a good job just forcibly take them. housing must be a right and we should treat it as such.
No one who owns a home would vote for them. It’s not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else’s homes, but by a lot less.
Housing should not be an investment. They didn’t lose anything except speculated value which comes at the cost of locking others out from the ability to own their own home. In fact, those morons who care so much about “muh investment” are also costing themselves through higher property taxes and ridiculous house prices they’d have to face if they ever have to move.
There are quite a few people who say they wouldn’t be able to afford the house they have now if they had to finance it at today’s prices and interest rates. How can they realize the capital gains on such an “investment” if they don’t own more than one home? They still have to live somewhere.
When housing is not an investment, you have far less incentive to improve or maintain the land you are on because you don’t own it and whatever you do may be met with hostility.
I think the problem isn’t with home ownership, it’s with unaffordability perpetuated by private equity and how our culture doesn’t see property ownership as a human right but instead as a privilege.
If we made residential property ownership illegal for businesses and limited individual property ownership to say, 5 properties, we’d all be better off. Rich people should be free to own places but they shouldn’t be able to profit off of it so much they choke out the middle class and play fucking monopoly with everyone’s lives.
Removing speculation from the housing market doesn’t remove ownership.
God yes. I feel like I scratched the surface here because private equity is the problem but it gets so much weirder and worse with speculative markets.
fine, but taxes kick in on the second and get exponentially larger with each one
With that I’m fine with unlimited at like, 76% tax rate.
Everyone now owns wherever they are living. Current owner residents get reimbursed via taxes for their current equity over a period of time. People and government win, corporations take losses on investments and probably come out ahead anyway.
Obviously an oversimplified idea, but I think we should be asking “How can we make this happen?” more often than dismissing outright.
Taxes don’t come out of thin air. What you’re proposing is effectively: spend $300k on a house, lose $300k, then lose another $300k from your taxes.
That’s why you shouldn’t over simplify dumb ideas.
What I’m proposing you wouldn’t lose the 300k because you still have your house and you’ll get the 300k back over time. And yes taxes don’t come out of thin air, but the whole system needs plenty of overhauling.
Do you have a house though? Or are you still on a mortgage and now you’re in negative equity, get booted out and still have to pay the debt while being homeless?
Eh, I’d go for it. This whole country thing isn’t about my personal gain, but making life better for everyone.
I get why they would lose money, but in my head it’s still like you still have a home still so why should they care.
Lots of people buy homes as an investment, its not only large corporations that do this, and if someone bought a home expecting that when they sell it they will get most of their money back, or even a profit on it, they would really be harmed by a government guaranteeing effectively free housing for all. If you want such a world to exist, it can’t be done instantly for sure
Profit or loss on real estate speculation should no more guide government policy than profit or loss on soy futures or baseball card investments. You want to use housing as an investment, you have to accept risk like any other investment.
Homeowners already are subsidized with mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions, something renters do not benefit from. Government housing policy should be crafted to support strong, stable, healthy communities.
Homes as an investment is what should be illegal. If you want to invest in real estate it should be commercial only.
You need to consider that people need somewhere to live. So, if your only house doubles in value, you generally can’t make use of this fact to get more goods and/or services, since every other house has likely also doubled in value. The only way you can get to these gains is if you’re willing to trade down in some way. For example, you could move to a rural area, where housing is cheaper, or you could move into a smaller home. If you’re unwilling to do any those things, your house becoming more valuable is not that useful. (Unless of course the increase in value is due to the land your house is on getting better in some way. This only concerns cases were your house gets more valuable due to increasing scarcity). In fact, since property taxes exists, you might end up getting priced out of your own house.
Tells this to the millions of voters that thought “tarif every country, specially or allies” would be a great economic plan.
you leave individuals who own up to, say, 3 houses alone and start massively taxing anything further. 4+ house voting bloc can suck a dick. corporations will be forced to rent at obscenely low rates to the point that they will be stupid not to sell. they have a minimum tenant percentage to make sure they’re not hoarding, and have mandatory government evaluation for any sale. fail to do any of this for 60 days and your properties now belong to the people.
Oh I’m sure those contractors would pass those breaks on and not just pocket the savings /s
This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get ‘paid’ by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.
How does that lower the cost of homes though?
Edit: to be clear, I mean the cost to the buyer, not the builder.
if you make more homes, then the value of each home individually would drop.
That’s not how it works in reality, unfortunately.
How so?
I think the poster is going by the mistaken assumption that there isn’t enough housing so they’re looking for incentives to increase supply. which is not the issue.
If you wanted bread to be cheaper, you would increase the supply of bread. If you want homes to be cheaper, increase the amount of homes. It might not be the issue at hand, but it definitely is a valid solution.
corporations are not hoarding bread so they can rent them at obscene rates.
Ideally, if one company charged too much for rent, the person living there could move to another place owned by a different company that would charge cheaper rent, in an effort to take business from the first company.
The issue arrives when monopolies control the majority of homes, but those monopolies can be broken much more easily if the cost of buying homes went down (from an increased supply of them) and the barrier to entry of new homeowners who want to rent went down. That would increase competition and would eliminate these monopolies.
unfortunately in reality that doesn’t happen in the market. you can force it though. the government can she should build as many houses as necessary, relatively high quality and super affordable if not free, especially since there’s no profit motive. make the houses owned by corporations pointless to the point that they’re forced to compete with a non-profit housing entity funded by the public.
and if they don’t do a good job just forcibly take them. housing must be a right and we should treat it as such.
No no, if they force my loan to be 100$ they’re just going to increase interest 10,000 to get to that 300k lol