|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Norway28896 Posts
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these?
|
On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these?
You can silver lining anything but that doesn't make it useful discussion. And it is pretty questionable if the Tariffs bring in more tax dollars than they prevent by tanking the economy. Right now it feels like BJ is promoting the weight loss benefits from cancer. A better one would be that it should be better for the environment if consumption drops, but again will it set back future investments in long term environmental gains, who knows. You got to dig really deep to find some sort of benefit, and anyone you find is not one that the people who support Trump are interested in.
|
On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these?
If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we.
|
Norway28896 Posts
On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we.
We aren't. But BJ also isn't arguing in favor of the tariffs, just saying that the government getting some funding out of it is a good thing. Unless the corruption rate is 100% that is hard for me to disagree with. Using tariffs to tax everyone to give tax reliefs for the rich is obviously a terrible combination of policies but that isn't his argument, there isn't a greater argument at hand, just nit-picking at another person's phrasing.
|
On April 15 2025 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we. We aren't. But BJ also isn't arguing in favor of the tariffs, just saying that the government getting some funding out of it is a good thing. Unless the corruption rate is 100% that is hard for me to disagree with. Using tariffs to tax everyone to give tax reliefs for the rich is obviously a terrible combination of policies but that isn't his argument, there isn't a greater argument at hand, just nit-picking at another person's phrasing.
That does not make it better, just a different form of bad faith.
Nitpicking can be driven by personal biases or a desire to find fault, rather than a genuine evaluation of the facts.
|
On April 15 2025 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we. We aren't. But BJ also isn't arguing in favor of the tariffs, just saying that the government getting some funding out of it is a good thing. Unless the corruption rate is 100% that is hard for me to disagree with. Using tariffs to tax everyone to give tax reliefs for the rich is obviously a terrible combination of policies but that isn't his argument, there isn't a greater argument at hand, just nit-picking at another person's phrasing.
Fair enough, this works, good point. Thanks.
|
On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we.
Tariffs generate revenue regardless of other government tax policies. If we have $1 trillion less from tax cuts but generate $200billion from tariffs then we have an $800billion deficit instead of a $1 trillion deficit. The $200 billion doesn't just vanish because regressive taxes are bad.
|
On April 15 2025 03:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we. Tariffs generate revenue regardless of other government tax policies. If we have $1 trillion less from tax cuts but generate $200billion from tariffs then we have an $800billion deficit instead of a $1 trillion deficit. The $200 billion doesn't just vanish because regressive taxes are bad.
What if tariffs bring in 200BN but income tax falls by 100 BN due to layoffs directly from tariffs, cooperate taxes fall by 150 BN and farmers require a 100 BN bail out?
|
On April 15 2025 03:52 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 03:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we. Tariffs generate revenue regardless of other government tax policies. If we have $1 trillion less from tax cuts but generate $200billion from tariffs then we have an $800billion deficit instead of a $1 trillion deficit. The $200 billion doesn't just vanish because regressive taxes are bad. What if tariffs bring in 200BN but income tax falls by 100 BN due to layoffs directly from tariffs, cooperate taxes fall by 150 BN and farmers require a 100 BN bail out?
negative 150BN. Let me know if you need me to show the maths.
|
On April 15 2025 03:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On April 14 2025 22:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is another iteration of the people vs blackjack where there isnt actually any real disagreement tbh. Bj isnt in favor of trump's tariffs in fact he thinks theyre incredibly stupid, but he also doesn't think there are 0 upsides to tariffs. I think a good 95%+ of people posting here broadly agree with both these? If we're currently cutting a whole bunch of taxes on the rich and we're also implementing some tariffs, which will result in overall less government funding than before, it's a bit silly to present the money that you make from tariffs as an advantage based on a reasoning that revolves around government funding. At best you can argue that this is a transfer of funding from the rich to the entire population, if you're into regressive taxing, some people are into that. The original statement is true in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, are we. Tariffs generate revenue regardless of other government tax policies. If we have $1 trillion less from tax cuts but generate $200billion from tariffs then we have an $800billion deficit instead of a $1 trillion deficit. The $200 billion doesn't just vanish because regressive taxes are bad.
Nobody has any trouble following this.
|
I am completely academically thinking about the issue of housing being way too xpensive for low and medium income people in german metropolitan areas. My wife, upon our many times raging how even we as quite well off people not having good choices on the market, said we should simply forbid foreign investors to buy real estate for investment purposes.
So i am now giving this very simplistic policy a thought, i would however be consequential and forbid buying any real estat or flats if it is not for the primary purpose of inhabitating it as the main residence. Because being foreign has never stopped anyone from owning a german "company" and i don't believe germans withenough mony to buy multi story buildings for their portfolio are not a smaller problem as russian oligarchs.
So, let's forget for a second that there is a snowballs chance in a fiery hell (because some hells are described as being frozen, you pedantic people) of this ever happening even if the left would get elected with a full majority, what would be the downsides of this policy.
I'll start with my limited undertanding of economic policy:
Wanted Consequences: With the current prices, a huge force of demand would be immediately eliminated. This would mean that prices, according to the assumed law of the market would drop. This would mean, that people who depend on having a home might be able to afford them.
Unwanted Consequences:
-The above is obviously only relevant for 1-household homes. Multistory buildings do not have a buyer that would be allowed to buy that.
-How do you force the usage of the bought real estate? Do you force the buyer to sell the object as soon as he suddenly doesn’t want to live there anymore? There might be very valid reasons why someone bought the home , lived in it, then needed to live somewhere else. And there would be more then enough people to find our directly after buying that new home, that they suddenly do not want to move anymore and now HAVE TO find someone else to live in it. There would also be a million loopholes tried, like finding that one relative to buy if for who then suddenly eed to move somewhere else, I am sure people would get super creative.
-Households currently in the process of financing their own home with the understanding of afterwards owning something based on the value they purchased and financed it for would feel... upset. If the housing market "collapses" due to that law, which means prices for houses go down instead of up, there would be a certain group of people sufficiently well off to finance a house in these times but not well off enough to stomach the change in value downwards. I would assume the institutes giving out the loans would immediately raise interest now that the value they would get for defaulting would drastically lose value. So a bunch of high income households might suffer immense financial pain due to that.
-What happens to real estate currently owned by people not inhabiting it? If they need to sell it "under value" that might also cause political pain. If they decide not to sell it because they don't want the price the market now offers, the current residents might not get the investment the house needs because the sell value does not lead to investment, it might be more profitable to simply ru down the building and collect rent until nobody wants to live there any more.
-The impact on rent will take a lot of time, because it only goes down if enough people can now actually buy their own home due to lower real estate prices that flats simply do not get rented at the current rates.
-Companies lose value and this might cause direct economic pain that outweighs the gain of housing being more affordable. If a company like Vonovia would lose all it's value, i do not know if this would shake up the markets enough to cause more then "limited" losses for shareholders of Vonovia.
So, based on these perceived problems, here is how i would address them.
First, what happens to multi unit buildings owned by private persons or companies that use them for rent. For now, I guess nothing, as long as they do not want to sell them. If they now want to sell them, the only possible buyer would be the government or probably more precisely the municipality. Having the municipalities buy up real estate to have social housing again is something I am strongly in favor of. However, a quick google shows that 12,4 million german households own real estate and the average value of this property in 2018 was 295000 according to the internet. That market I worth around 3.658.000.000.000 Euros. 3,685 Billion Euros. That’s not the value of the market owned as an investment but I am pretty sure American trillions would be the value of propertie the municipalities would have to finance if companies/private persons would suddenly feel the need to cash in on their property before it loses all value. If you remove the market for the good, you should be prepared to buy it. I have zero sympathies for Vonovia but even I am not left enough to want to simply disown companies like that. And while my sympathies for private citizens owning multi-unit buildings is limited, I have more sympathies for them then for a soulless company. So the municipalities would immediately need to offer any buildings that are investment and that money is currently not there. As we would also buy on pre market implosion value and then rent out for much less, as this is our desired goal, this would not pay for itself soon and we are in this mess, because the municipalities had sold their residential buildings to get cash.
For the second point, you would have to make some good legislature. I think it’s fair that people have to think about their investments and it’s not like currently there isn’t an overabundance of people wanting homes. The way it would be worded would probably be, you are allowed to not live in it, you are just forbidden to rent it out. Like you are forbidden to rent industrial buildings to people.
This one would probably need to be solved by money as well. Guarantee that the loss of value of property does not change financial conditions for people. This might even lead to guaranteeing the price before the crash for people that need to sell the house up to x years after the law would take effect.
Fourth point, I guess would need to be solved by the rent. In my opinion, it should neve be up to then rentee to force reductions of rent. Currently, the rentee is entitled to demand reductions in cases where the value of the rent is obviously reduced, for istance due to problems with heating or problems with mold. This is really not a good thing, as the rentee is already in a position of dependency on the renter. If the government would step in to force realistic rents based on the flat and the area, that would be a net benefit for society. Make it so, that luxurious housing can still exist t whatever absurd rents you want, but if you have a 4 room apartment with 80 sqm, you better not want 2000€ cold for that. And if you are not willing or economically able to reduce the rent, then you have to sell to the municipality again 😊
5th, see number 4, I strongly belief rents need to come down to keep social peace. If I can get 12k income/year after taxes for having bought a flat in Munich for 300k or 400k 20 years ago, that Is not a fair situation for those who do not have the money to di the same, probably because they need t pay 2k per month in rent living in Munich. The market will not solve this.
And last point, Vonovia will be bought by the government. If you are a company that deals in real estate, you will be nationalized. Of course before you are given money for your real estate that you suddenly want to sell and for a price before the market crash.
Discuss :D
|
On April 17 2025 01:35 Broetchenholer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I am completely academically thinking about the issue of housing being way too xpensive for low and medium income people in german metropolitan areas. My wife, upon our many times raging how even we as quite well off people not having good choices on the market, said we should simply forbid foreign investors to buy real estate for investment purposes.
So i am now giving this very simplistic policy a thought, i would however be consequential and forbid buying any real estat or flats if it is not for the primary purpose of inhabitating it as the main residence. Because being foreign has never stopped anyone from owning a german "company" and i don't believe germans withenough mony to buy multi story buildings for their portfolio are not a smaller problem as russian oligarchs.
So, let's forget for a second that there is a snowballs chance in a fiery hell (because some hells are described as being frozen, you pedantic people) of this ever happening even if the left would get elected with a full majority, what would be the downsides of this policy.
I'll start with my limited undertanding of economic policy:
Wanted Consequences: With the current prices, a huge force of demand would be immediately eliminated. This would mean that prices, according to the assumed law of the market would drop. This would mean, that people who depend on having a home might be able to afford them.
Unwanted Consequences:
-The above is obviously only relevant for 1-household homes. Multistory buildings do not have a buyer that would be allowed to buy that.
-How do you force the usage of the bought real estate? Do you force the buyer to sell the object as soon as he suddenly doesn’t want to live there anymore? There might be very valid reasons why someone bought the home , lived in it, then needed to live somewhere else. And there would be more then enough people to find our directly after buying that new home, that they suddenly do not want to move anymore and now HAVE TO find someone else to live in it. There would also be a million loopholes tried, like finding that one relative to buy if for who then suddenly eed to move somewhere else, I am sure people would get super creative.
-Households currently in the process of financing their own home with the understanding of afterwards owning something based on the value they purchased and financed it for would feel... upset. If the housing market "collapses" due to that law, which means prices for houses go down instead of up, there would be a certain group of people sufficiently well off to finance a house in these times but not well off enough to stomach the change in value downwards. I would assume the institutes giving out the loans would immediately raise interest now that the value they would get for defaulting would drastically lose value. So a bunch of high income households might suffer immense financial pain due to that.
-What happens to real estate currently owned by people not inhabiting it? If they need to sell it "under value" that might also cause political pain. If they decide not to sell it because they don't want the price the market now offers, the current residents might not get the investment the house needs because the sell value does not lead to investment, it might be more profitable to simply ru down the building and collect rent until nobody wants to live there any more.
-The impact on rent will take a lot of time, because it only goes down if enough people can now actually buy their own home due to lower real estate prices that flats simply do not get rented at the current rates.
-Companies lose value and this might cause direct economic pain that outweighs the gain of housing being more affordable. If a company like Vonovia would lose all it's value, i do not know if this would shake up the markets enough to cause more then "limited" losses for shareholders of Vonovia.
So, based on these perceived problems, here is how i would address them.
First, what happens to multi unit buildings owned by private persons or companies that use them for rent. For now, I guess nothing, as long as they do not want to sell them. If they now want to sell them, the only possible buyer would be the government or probably more precisely the municipality. Having the municipalities buy up real estate to have social housing again is something I am strongly in favor of. However, a quick google shows that 12,4 million german households own real estate and the average value of this property in 2018 was 295000 according to the internet. That market I worth around 3.658.000.000.000 Euros. 3,685 Billion Euros. That’s not the value of the market owned as an investment but I am pretty sure American trillions would be the value of propertie the municipalities would have to finance if companies/private persons would suddenly feel the need to cash in on their property before it loses all value. If you remove the market for the good, you should be prepared to buy it. I have zero sympathies for Vonovia but even I am not left enough to want to simply disown companies like that. And while my sympathies for private citizens owning multi-unit buildings is limited, I have more sympathies for them then for a soulless company. So the municipalities would immediately need to offer any buildings that are investment and that money is currently not there. As we would also buy on pre market implosion value and then rent out for much less, as this is our desired goal, this would not pay for itself soon and we are in this mess, because the municipalities had sold their residential buildings to get cash.
For the second point, you would have to make some good legislature. I think it’s fair that people have to think about their investments and it’s not like currently there isn’t an overabundance of people wanting homes. The way it would be worded would probably be, you are allowed to not live in it, you are just forbidden to rent it out. Like you are forbidden to rent industrial buildings to people.
This one would probably need to be solved by money as well. Guarantee that the loss of value of property does not change financial conditions for people. This might even lead to guaranteeing the price before the crash for people that need to sell the house up to x years after the law would take effect.
Fourth point, I guess would need to be solved by the rent. In my opinion, it should neve be up to then rentee to force reductions of rent. Currently, the rentee is entitled to demand reductions in cases where the value of the rent is obviously reduced, for istance due to problems with heating or problems with mold. This is really not a good thing, as the rentee is already in a position of dependency on the renter. If the government would step in to force realistic rents based on the flat and the area, that would be a net benefit for society. Make it so, that luxurious housing can still exist t whatever absurd rents you want, but if you have a 4 room apartment with 80 sqm, you better not want 2000€ cold for that. And if you are not willing or economically able to reduce the rent, then you have to sell to the municipality again 😊
5th, see number 4, I strongly belief rents need to come down to keep social peace. If I can get 12k income/year after taxes for having bought a flat in Munich for 300k or 400k 20 years ago, that Is not a fair situation for those who do not have the money to di the same, probably because they need t pay 2k per month in rent living in Munich. The market will not solve this.
And last point, Vonovia will be bought by the government. If you are a company that deals in real estate, you will be nationalized. Of course before you are given money for your real estate that you suddenly want to sell and for a price before the market crash.
Discuss :D
I will admit I don't have much direct expertise to comment on it. But I will say my wife loves the idea of moving our family over to Europe with the way things in the US have been going lately. And right now the major barrier is housing is simply too expensive in most placed we'd actually want to live.
In the current global political climate, I think Europe ought to be trying to entice highly specialized semiconductor manufacturing engineers like me. But then I look for houses and salaries and think to myself "Never mind!"
|
Yes, IT is insane. When my wife starts working again we will be firmly in the top 10 % of German household income. A flat to rent where we live costs 2250 € with heating and water etc. yesterday we saw that flats in newly constructed buildings in our neighborhood are being sold for 1.2 million euros. What. The. Actual. Fuck. How is a low income family supposed to live like that?
|
On April 17 2025 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 01:35 Broetchenholer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I am completely academically thinking about the issue of housing being way too xpensive for low and medium income people in german metropolitan areas. My wife, upon our many times raging how even we as quite well off people not having good choices on the market, said we should simply forbid foreign investors to buy real estate for investment purposes.
So i am now giving this very simplistic policy a thought, i would however be consequential and forbid buying any real estat or flats if it is not for the primary purpose of inhabitating it as the main residence. Because being foreign has never stopped anyone from owning a german "company" and i don't believe germans withenough mony to buy multi story buildings for their portfolio are not a smaller problem as russian oligarchs.
So, let's forget for a second that there is a snowballs chance in a fiery hell (because some hells are described as being frozen, you pedantic people) of this ever happening even if the left would get elected with a full majority, what would be the downsides of this policy.
I'll start with my limited undertanding of economic policy:
Wanted Consequences: With the current prices, a huge force of demand would be immediately eliminated. This would mean that prices, according to the assumed law of the market would drop. This would mean, that people who depend on having a home might be able to afford them.
Unwanted Consequences:
-The above is obviously only relevant for 1-household homes. Multistory buildings do not have a buyer that would be allowed to buy that.
-How do you force the usage of the bought real estate? Do you force the buyer to sell the object as soon as he suddenly doesn’t want to live there anymore? There might be very valid reasons why someone bought the home , lived in it, then needed to live somewhere else. And there would be more then enough people to find our directly after buying that new home, that they suddenly do not want to move anymore and now HAVE TO find someone else to live in it. There would also be a million loopholes tried, like finding that one relative to buy if for who then suddenly eed to move somewhere else, I am sure people would get super creative.
-Households currently in the process of financing their own home with the understanding of afterwards owning something based on the value they purchased and financed it for would feel... upset. If the housing market "collapses" due to that law, which means prices for houses go down instead of up, there would be a certain group of people sufficiently well off to finance a house in these times but not well off enough to stomach the change in value downwards. I would assume the institutes giving out the loans would immediately raise interest now that the value they would get for defaulting would drastically lose value. So a bunch of high income households might suffer immense financial pain due to that.
-What happens to real estate currently owned by people not inhabiting it? If they need to sell it "under value" that might also cause political pain. If they decide not to sell it because they don't want the price the market now offers, the current residents might not get the investment the house needs because the sell value does not lead to investment, it might be more profitable to simply ru down the building and collect rent until nobody wants to live there any more.
-The impact on rent will take a lot of time, because it only goes down if enough people can now actually buy their own home due to lower real estate prices that flats simply do not get rented at the current rates.
-Companies lose value and this might cause direct economic pain that outweighs the gain of housing being more affordable. If a company like Vonovia would lose all it's value, i do not know if this would shake up the markets enough to cause more then "limited" losses for shareholders of Vonovia.
So, based on these perceived problems, here is how i would address them.
First, what happens to multi unit buildings owned by private persons or companies that use them for rent. For now, I guess nothing, as long as they do not want to sell them. If they now want to sell them, the only possible buyer would be the government or probably more precisely the municipality. Having the municipalities buy up real estate to have social housing again is something I am strongly in favor of. However, a quick google shows that 12,4 million german households own real estate and the average value of this property in 2018 was 295000 according to the internet. That market I worth around 3.658.000.000.000 Euros. 3,685 Billion Euros. That’s not the value of the market owned as an investment but I am pretty sure American trillions would be the value of propertie the municipalities would have to finance if companies/private persons would suddenly feel the need to cash in on their property before it loses all value. If you remove the market for the good, you should be prepared to buy it. I have zero sympathies for Vonovia but even I am not left enough to want to simply disown companies like that. And while my sympathies for private citizens owning multi-unit buildings is limited, I have more sympathies for them then for a soulless company. So the municipalities would immediately need to offer any buildings that are investment and that money is currently not there. As we would also buy on pre market implosion value and then rent out for much less, as this is our desired goal, this would not pay for itself soon and we are in this mess, because the municipalities had sold their residential buildings to get cash.
For the second point, you would have to make some good legislature. I think it’s fair that people have to think about their investments and it’s not like currently there isn’t an overabundance of people wanting homes. The way it would be worded would probably be, you are allowed to not live in it, you are just forbidden to rent it out. Like you are forbidden to rent industrial buildings to people.
This one would probably need to be solved by money as well. Guarantee that the loss of value of property does not change financial conditions for people. This might even lead to guaranteeing the price before the crash for people that need to sell the house up to x years after the law would take effect.
Fourth point, I guess would need to be solved by the rent. In my opinion, it should neve be up to then rentee to force reductions of rent. Currently, the rentee is entitled to demand reductions in cases where the value of the rent is obviously reduced, for istance due to problems with heating or problems with mold. This is really not a good thing, as the rentee is already in a position of dependency on the renter. If the government would step in to force realistic rents based on the flat and the area, that would be a net benefit for society. Make it so, that luxurious housing can still exist t whatever absurd rents you want, but if you have a 4 room apartment with 80 sqm, you better not want 2000€ cold for that. And if you are not willing or economically able to reduce the rent, then you have to sell to the municipality again 😊
5th, see number 4, I strongly belief rents need to come down to keep social peace. If I can get 12k income/year after taxes for having bought a flat in Munich for 300k or 400k 20 years ago, that Is not a fair situation for those who do not have the money to di the same, probably because they need t pay 2k per month in rent living in Munich. The market will not solve this.
And last point, Vonovia will be bought by the government. If you are a company that deals in real estate, you will be nationalized. Of course before you are given money for your real estate that you suddenly want to sell and for a price before the market crash.
Discuss :D
I will admit I don't have much direct expertise to comment on it. But I will say my wife loves the idea of moving our family over to Europe with the way things in the US have been going lately. And right now the major barrier is housing is simply too expensive in most placed we'd actually want to live. In the current global political climate, I think Europe ought to be trying to entice highly specialized semiconductor manufacturing engineers like me. But then I look for houses and salaries and think to myself "Never mind!"
Insofar as I know, Eindhoven and surroundings are the Dutch, and thus European capital of semiconductor manufacturing, and it isn't particularly expensive by Dutch standards. Or probably at all compared to the US west coast, where I think you are now?
|
On April 17 2025 04:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2025 01:35 Broetchenholer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I am completely academically thinking about the issue of housing being way too xpensive for low and medium income people in german metropolitan areas. My wife, upon our many times raging how even we as quite well off people not having good choices on the market, said we should simply forbid foreign investors to buy real estate for investment purposes.
So i am now giving this very simplistic policy a thought, i would however be consequential and forbid buying any real estat or flats if it is not for the primary purpose of inhabitating it as the main residence. Because being foreign has never stopped anyone from owning a german "company" and i don't believe germans withenough mony to buy multi story buildings for their portfolio are not a smaller problem as russian oligarchs.
So, let's forget for a second that there is a snowballs chance in a fiery hell (because some hells are described as being frozen, you pedantic people) of this ever happening even if the left would get elected with a full majority, what would be the downsides of this policy.
I'll start with my limited undertanding of economic policy:
Wanted Consequences: With the current prices, a huge force of demand would be immediately eliminated. This would mean that prices, according to the assumed law of the market would drop. This would mean, that people who depend on having a home might be able to afford them.
Unwanted Consequences:
-The above is obviously only relevant for 1-household homes. Multistory buildings do not have a buyer that would be allowed to buy that.
-How do you force the usage of the bought real estate? Do you force the buyer to sell the object as soon as he suddenly doesn’t want to live there anymore? There might be very valid reasons why someone bought the home , lived in it, then needed to live somewhere else. And there would be more then enough people to find our directly after buying that new home, that they suddenly do not want to move anymore and now HAVE TO find someone else to live in it. There would also be a million loopholes tried, like finding that one relative to buy if for who then suddenly eed to move somewhere else, I am sure people would get super creative.
-Households currently in the process of financing their own home with the understanding of afterwards owning something based on the value they purchased and financed it for would feel... upset. If the housing market "collapses" due to that law, which means prices for houses go down instead of up, there would be a certain group of people sufficiently well off to finance a house in these times but not well off enough to stomach the change in value downwards. I would assume the institutes giving out the loans would immediately raise interest now that the value they would get for defaulting would drastically lose value. So a bunch of high income households might suffer immense financial pain due to that.
-What happens to real estate currently owned by people not inhabiting it? If they need to sell it "under value" that might also cause political pain. If they decide not to sell it because they don't want the price the market now offers, the current residents might not get the investment the house needs because the sell value does not lead to investment, it might be more profitable to simply ru down the building and collect rent until nobody wants to live there any more.
-The impact on rent will take a lot of time, because it only goes down if enough people can now actually buy their own home due to lower real estate prices that flats simply do not get rented at the current rates.
-Companies lose value and this might cause direct economic pain that outweighs the gain of housing being more affordable. If a company like Vonovia would lose all it's value, i do not know if this would shake up the markets enough to cause more then "limited" losses for shareholders of Vonovia.
So, based on these perceived problems, here is how i would address them.
First, what happens to multi unit buildings owned by private persons or companies that use them for rent. For now, I guess nothing, as long as they do not want to sell them. If they now want to sell them, the only possible buyer would be the government or probably more precisely the municipality. Having the municipalities buy up real estate to have social housing again is something I am strongly in favor of. However, a quick google shows that 12,4 million german households own real estate and the average value of this property in 2018 was 295000 according to the internet. That market I worth around 3.658.000.000.000 Euros. 3,685 Billion Euros. That’s not the value of the market owned as an investment but I am pretty sure American trillions would be the value of propertie the municipalities would have to finance if companies/private persons would suddenly feel the need to cash in on their property before it loses all value. If you remove the market for the good, you should be prepared to buy it. I have zero sympathies for Vonovia but even I am not left enough to want to simply disown companies like that. And while my sympathies for private citizens owning multi-unit buildings is limited, I have more sympathies for them then for a soulless company. So the municipalities would immediately need to offer any buildings that are investment and that money is currently not there. As we would also buy on pre market implosion value and then rent out for much less, as this is our desired goal, this would not pay for itself soon and we are in this mess, because the municipalities had sold their residential buildings to get cash.
For the second point, you would have to make some good legislature. I think it’s fair that people have to think about their investments and it’s not like currently there isn’t an overabundance of people wanting homes. The way it would be worded would probably be, you are allowed to not live in it, you are just forbidden to rent it out. Like you are forbidden to rent industrial buildings to people.
This one would probably need to be solved by money as well. Guarantee that the loss of value of property does not change financial conditions for people. This might even lead to guaranteeing the price before the crash for people that need to sell the house up to x years after the law would take effect.
Fourth point, I guess would need to be solved by the rent. In my opinion, it should neve be up to then rentee to force reductions of rent. Currently, the rentee is entitled to demand reductions in cases where the value of the rent is obviously reduced, for istance due to problems with heating or problems with mold. This is really not a good thing, as the rentee is already in a position of dependency on the renter. If the government would step in to force realistic rents based on the flat and the area, that would be a net benefit for society. Make it so, that luxurious housing can still exist t whatever absurd rents you want, but if you have a 4 room apartment with 80 sqm, you better not want 2000€ cold for that. And if you are not willing or economically able to reduce the rent, then you have to sell to the municipality again 😊
5th, see number 4, I strongly belief rents need to come down to keep social peace. If I can get 12k income/year after taxes for having bought a flat in Munich for 300k or 400k 20 years ago, that Is not a fair situation for those who do not have the money to di the same, probably because they need t pay 2k per month in rent living in Munich. The market will not solve this.
And last point, Vonovia will be bought by the government. If you are a company that deals in real estate, you will be nationalized. Of course before you are given money for your real estate that you suddenly want to sell and for a price before the market crash.
Discuss :D
I will admit I don't have much direct expertise to comment on it. But I will say my wife loves the idea of moving our family over to Europe with the way things in the US have been going lately. And right now the major barrier is housing is simply too expensive in most placed we'd actually want to live. In the current global political climate, I think Europe ought to be trying to entice highly specialized semiconductor manufacturing engineers like me. But then I look for houses and salaries and think to myself "Never mind!" Insofar as I know, Eindhoven and surroundings are the Dutch, and thus European capital of semiconductor manufacturing, and it isn't particularly expensive by Dutch standards. Or probably at all compared to the US west coast, where I think you are now?
My current mortgage payment is $1700/month for an 1800 sqft (167 m^2) house because I bought it a long time ago and refinanced into an amazing rate. Its the reason my wife is able to take a break from her career to be with our kids. When I looked around, finding a similar sized house where my payment after selling my current house would be similar was tough. It basically ended up being $1000 more expensive to live in Europe. That being said, I don't think I specifically looked in the area you're describing, so maybe I ought to!
|
I'm not sure if expecting to find a similar size house for a comparable price is realistic. The US has a lot of space and uses cheap building materials. But Europe has other advantages in terms of quality of life: walkable cities and better city planning, better work-life balance, safe schools, affordable universities and healthcare, and it's not turning into a fascist dictatorship. ;p
|
On April 17 2025 04:34 maybenexttime wrote:
I'm not sure if expecting to find a similar size house for a comparable price is realistic. The US has a lot of space and uses cheap building materials. But Europe has other advantages in terms of quality of life: walkable cities and better city planning, better work-life balance, safe schools, affordable universities and healthcare, and it's not turning into a fascist dictatorship. ;p
Yeah to be honest I don't expect an identical house. Its just not the same place. And all the QOL stuff is major and the reason my wife wants us to move out there if we can make it work.
But as you can imagine, leaving both our families behind, building a new life abroad, etc, is something we are just super hesitant to do and I don't expect we would actually go for it unless we had a great option available to us...Or shit gets extremely grim over here and its a necessity rather than whim.
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy75231z90o.amp
(French prisons under armed attack)
I sure hope that this headline isn‘t a glimpse into the future for other countries in the EU.
Doing shit like this is what gives the right wing the juice they need. In more ways than one.
Who knows if it‘s related to Le Pen and attacks on Teslas.
|
On April 17 2025 04:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 04:05 Acrofales wrote:On April 17 2025 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2025 01:35 Broetchenholer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I am completely academically thinking about the issue of housing being way too xpensive for low and medium income people in german metropolitan areas. My wife, upon our many times raging how even we as quite well off people not having good choices on the market, said we should simply forbid foreign investors to buy real estate for investment purposes.
So i am now giving this very simplistic policy a thought, i would however be consequential and forbid buying any real estat or flats if it is not for the primary purpose of inhabitating it as the main residence. Because being foreign has never stopped anyone from owning a german "company" and i don't believe germans withenough mony to buy multi story buildings for their portfolio are not a smaller problem as russian oligarchs.
So, let's forget for a second that there is a snowballs chance in a fiery hell (because some hells are described as being frozen, you pedantic people) of this ever happening even if the left would get elected with a full majority, what would be the downsides of this policy.
I'll start with my limited undertanding of economic policy:
Wanted Consequences: With the current prices, a huge force of demand would be immediately eliminated. This would mean that prices, according to the assumed law of the market would drop. This would mean, that people who depend on having a home might be able to afford them.
Unwanted Consequences:
-The above is obviously only relevant for 1-household homes. Multistory buildings do not have a buyer that would be allowed to buy that.
-How do you force the usage of the bought real estate? Do you force the buyer to sell the object as soon as he suddenly doesn’t want to live there anymore? There might be very valid reasons why someone bought the home , lived in it, then needed to live somewhere else. And there would be more then enough people to find our directly after buying that new home, that they suddenly do not want to move anymore and now HAVE TO find someone else to live in it. There would also be a million loopholes tried, like finding that one relative to buy if for who then suddenly eed to move somewhere else, I am sure people would get super creative.
-Households currently in the process of financing their own home with the understanding of afterwards owning something based on the value they purchased and financed it for would feel... upset. If the housing market "collapses" due to that law, which means prices for houses go down instead of up, there would be a certain group of people sufficiently well off to finance a house in these times but not well off enough to stomach the change in value downwards. I would assume the institutes giving out the loans would immediately raise interest now that the value they would get for defaulting would drastically lose value. So a bunch of high income households might suffer immense financial pain due to that.
-What happens to real estate currently owned by people not inhabiting it? If they need to sell it "under value" that might also cause political pain. If they decide not to sell it because they don't want the price the market now offers, the current residents might not get the investment the house needs because the sell value does not lead to investment, it might be more profitable to simply ru down the building and collect rent until nobody wants to live there any more.
-The impact on rent will take a lot of time, because it only goes down if enough people can now actually buy their own home due to lower real estate prices that flats simply do not get rented at the current rates.
-Companies lose value and this might cause direct economic pain that outweighs the gain of housing being more affordable. If a company like Vonovia would lose all it's value, i do not know if this would shake up the markets enough to cause more then "limited" losses for shareholders of Vonovia.
So, based on these perceived problems, here is how i would address them.
First, what happens to multi unit buildings owned by private persons or companies that use them for rent. For now, I guess nothing, as long as they do not want to sell them. If they now want to sell them, the only possible buyer would be the government or probably more precisely the municipality. Having the municipalities buy up real estate to have social housing again is something I am strongly in favor of. However, a quick google shows that 12,4 million german households own real estate and the average value of this property in 2018 was 295000 according to the internet. That market I worth around 3.658.000.000.000 Euros. 3,685 Billion Euros. That’s not the value of the market owned as an investment but I am pretty sure American trillions would be the value of propertie the municipalities would have to finance if companies/private persons would suddenly feel the need to cash in on their property before it loses all value. If you remove the market for the good, you should be prepared to buy it. I have zero sympathies for Vonovia but even I am not left enough to want to simply disown companies like that. And while my sympathies for private citizens owning multi-unit buildings is limited, I have more sympathies for them then for a soulless company. So the municipalities would immediately need to offer any buildings that are investment and that money is currently not there. As we would also buy on pre market implosion value and then rent out for much less, as this is our desired goal, this would not pay for itself soon and we are in this mess, because the municipalities had sold their residential buildings to get cash.
For the second point, you would have to make some good legislature. I think it’s fair that people have to think about their investments and it’s not like currently there isn’t an overabundance of people wanting homes. The way it would be worded would probably be, you are allowed to not live in it, you are just forbidden to rent it out. Like you are forbidden to rent industrial buildings to people.
This one would probably need to be solved by money as well. Guarantee that the loss of value of property does not change financial conditions for people. This might even lead to guaranteeing the price before the crash for people that need to sell the house up to x years after the law would take effect.
Fourth point, I guess would need to be solved by the rent. In my opinion, it should neve be up to then rentee to force reductions of rent. Currently, the rentee is entitled to demand reductions in cases where the value of the rent is obviously reduced, for istance due to problems with heating or problems with mold. This is really not a good thing, as the rentee is already in a position of dependency on the renter. If the government would step in to force realistic rents based on the flat and the area, that would be a net benefit for society. Make it so, that luxurious housing can still exist t whatever absurd rents you want, but if you have a 4 room apartment with 80 sqm, you better not want 2000€ cold for that. And if you are not willing or economically able to reduce the rent, then you have to sell to the municipality again 😊
5th, see number 4, I strongly belief rents need to come down to keep social peace. If I can get 12k income/year after taxes for having bought a flat in Munich for 300k or 400k 20 years ago, that Is not a fair situation for those who do not have the money to di the same, probably because they need t pay 2k per month in rent living in Munich. The market will not solve this.
And last point, Vonovia will be bought by the government. If you are a company that deals in real estate, you will be nationalized. Of course before you are given money for your real estate that you suddenly want to sell and for a price before the market crash.
Discuss :D
I will admit I don't have much direct expertise to comment on it. But I will say my wife loves the idea of moving our family over to Europe with the way things in the US have been going lately. And right now the major barrier is housing is simply too expensive in most placed we'd actually want to live. In the current global political climate, I think Europe ought to be trying to entice highly specialized semiconductor manufacturing engineers like me. But then I look for houses and salaries and think to myself "Never mind!" Insofar as I know, Eindhoven and surroundings are the Dutch, and thus European capital of semiconductor manufacturing, and it isn't particularly expensive by Dutch standards. Or probably at all compared to the US west coast, where I think you are now? My current mortgage payment is $1700/month for an 1800 sqft (167 m^2) house because I bought it a long time ago and refinanced into an amazing rate. Its the reason my wife is able to take a break from her career to be with our kids. When I looked around, finding a similar sized house where my payment after selling my current house would be similar was tough. It basically ended up being $1000 more expensive to live in Europe. That being said, I don't think I specifically looked in the area you're describing, so maybe I ought to!
Hm. iI'll really depend where you look, because each region is different, but 1500 €/month is double what I pay in mortgage for a 110 m2 duplex in a well-to-do satellite town of Barcelona. That said, my neighbor is charging 1800/month in rent (see previous page for my rant on that). But outside of Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and San Sebastián, you'll find rent pretty cheap, even in major cities like Valencia or Sevilla, not that you'll find any cutting edge semiconductor industry in any of those places.
Netherlands has a very different housing market, but also, outside of the central area of the Randstad, real estate is quite affordable.
That said, I know very little about semiconductor manufacturing other than that ASML is in Veldhoven, which is just outside Eindhoven. BESI is also far outside the Randstad, but Eindhoven is kinda famous for also having Philips and the university: a real technology hub with a heavy focus on microelectronics. But as I said, my overall knowledge of the semiconductor industry is zero, so I don't know where you'd consider going.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
As a high earner, in continental Europe only Switzerland will give you disposable income even anywhere near what you can make in the US. And that dissappears as soon as we are talking family and kids. You definitely don't come over for the money.
But also realize that you can live very, very well in Europe with around a 6 figure income. Housing can be tough, true, especially in the red hot spots. But it's offset by a lot of services, universal healthcare, free education and extensive support for children which most countries provide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
