|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The problem is that too many people with money wants to live in big cities, forcing some to homelessness. Even forcing the prices down does not work, the market always finds a way, and it Sweden this created a mess including 6th hand rental contracts as noone would ever let go of their underpriced rental contracts!
I don't think there is a magical quickfix, but the governement itself building homes has been tried with varying degrees of success, in Vienna they have done this for a very long time, and the city goverment is now a powerful landlord balancing the market for the benefit of the citezens. "The Sails" of Napoli shows how badly this can go, though, no magical solutions available... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.it/20190517/naples-starts-demolition-of-notorious-crime-ridden-scampia-buildings/amp
|
People with money living in the cities is fine. The big problem is people with money buying stuff to flip it for profit but not living there.
|
On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it.
It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course.
|
On June 06 2019 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 10:17 KlaCkoN wrote:On June 06 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states? Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another. I mean isn't the only step from the existing Utah policy to AOC's stated goal paying for the policy using taxes levied on landlord profits. (And levying taxes on specific economic activity as a matter of policy is already a thing that is commonly done in America so that's not even anything new). Taking a step back I think people tend to vastly overestimate the effect economic policy has on growth/economic wellbeing. Per capita GDP growth growth rates in North America and western Europe are more or less matched when averaged over the past 100 years. Significantly lower in Europe between 1913 and 1950, significantly higher in Europe between 1950 and 1970 as the continent rebuilt after the wars. Entirely matched between 1970 and now. From 1960s French style state ownership of large segments of the economy to American style free markets. It all comes out in a wash, given at least somewhat free markets. Taxing specific types of economic activity typically occurs when the government is trying to discourage certain behaviors. Think sin taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco. But taxing rental housing? That’s just dumb policy. And I disagree with the idea that fiscal regulation and economic policy has no impact. It clearly does. The impact is quite obvious when you look at failed states like Venezuela. And there is no shortage of examples where deregulation boosted economic activity. Edit: Just to hammer home how stupid taxing rental housing is — taxes raise prices. It is completely idiotic to address homelessness and access to housing by raising the price of housing.
If you choose to use a very narrow band way to decide what caused the failure of Venezuala, maybe. You should be familiar enough with the issues to know that it's more complex than 'lol not Capitalists so failures'.
What AOC is advocating is pretty clearly an expansion to what we'd call council housing, an attempt to do something about homelessness, as opposed to the amazing right wing policy of 'let them sleep rough because fuck them for having no money'. I'm sure it's one you find fair and equitable but it doesn't address the problem.
Free market capitalists need to accept that it doesn't work. The free market is just a bunch of loopholes and abuse designed to funnel the money to a singularity at the top. Landlords will charge as much money as physically possible while giving the worst homes they can get away with, or not bother renting at all if there's better incentive to just leave the homes fallow until they can be resold. That isn't what houses are for. They're meant to be lived in.
|
On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course.
Which brings up something my sister and I loathe about our mother's TV habits.
"Hi, I'm straight guy contractor and this is my wife, blonde interior designer. Watch our new show on HGTV, Gentrification."
|
On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Show nested quote +Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground.
Oh yeah, you're not the only one making the mistake, some important figures in the american left do it as well. Cenk Uygur has this argument where he goes "You already like socialism, you like the military and the fire department" and that's excessively cringe.
It doesn't change that the way you treat capitalism and socialism is inconsistent, as I showed earlier.
Edit: I hadn't read your example and just assumed that you had found one that went well with your argument, cause there are a ton of them. What you chose is... quite poor actually. This is definitely more of a socialist point than a big government point from AOC.
|
|
|
On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course.
I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks.
|
On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks.
Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership?
|
On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership?
I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar.
|
On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I 100% agree. Just look at Vancouver. The city has a massive homeless problem but at the same time entire floors of high rises sit empty because people speculatively purchased all of the condo units, hoping they would go up in price (or as was alluded to by JimmiC, they wanted to launder a bunch of money, which is something that is being looked into right now). And it isn't just condos these people are buying, but also a lot of houses. In turn this has made the average price of a house in Vancouver skyrocket up. Now, unless you make serious money, you cannot afford to buy a house in Vancouver. Even renting in Vancouver is quite expensive now as a result of all this (but also because the people renting out units know that all tech people can afford to pay more, but everyone else is screwed as a result). The city is at least trying to do something about this situation now, but the damage has already been done.
It sounds like the same stuff is happening in San Francisco too from what I've heard. Rich tech people will attempt to buy multi-unit rental buildings for themselves and their buddies with the intention of booting out all of the rent-controlled tenants, who, without rent control, cannot afford to live in SF anymore, but also can't afford to move.
Those less well-off in cities like these are looking increasingly left behind. In both Canada and the US there need to be much stronger laws around rental pricing and what rights a tenant has. It seems ludicrous that the owners of rental units can raise rent almost arbitrarily on short notice.
|
On June 07 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership? I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar.
What do you think someone deserves to be compensated for as an owner?
|
On June 07 2019 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership? I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar. What do you think someone deserves to be compensated for as an owner?
Third-party usage.
|
On June 07 2019 00:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership? I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar. What do you think someone deserves to be compensated for as an owner? Third-party usage.
Who are the first two parties?
|
On June 06 2019 17:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 10:17 KlaCkoN wrote:On June 06 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2019 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Just to make this a little more concrete and a little less esoteric, AOC recently gave a great example of what I think is a very dangerous socialist policy at a town hall. Specifically, she said that everyone should be guaranteed housing before anyone has a right to earn a profit: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke with New Yorkers about her efforts in Congress to increase access to affordable housing at a town hall in the Bronx Thursday evening. Housing, she says, should be legislated as a human right. “What does that mean? It means that our access and our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The town hall, hosted by Housing Justice for All, a coalition of tenant associations and other housing advocates in New York, brought together tenants who are pushing for a package of housing bills that could implement universal rent control in the state.
Ocasio-Cortez says that with a Democratic majority in the house, she’s working at the federal level to disassemble the tax breaks that have incentivized companies to ignore residents. She also plans to re-introduce the Fair Chance at Housing Act in the House that would ease restrictions to federally-subsidized housing, particularly for tenants with previous criminal convictions. She told attendees that Sen. Kamala Harris is considering introducing it in the Senate, as well. “We have been conditioned to think that basic rights are a luxury and a privilege when they are not,” she said. Source. The level of government forced needed to effectuate this kind of policy is staggering. It's this type of need-based policymaking that betrays fundamental misunderstandings regarding how wealth is generated and how government interference in that process impoverishes nations. AOC is no better than the clowns that have run Venezuela into the ground. When places like Utah have shown it is cheaper to house people than to otherwise deal with the homeless, I think it is just good policy. If you want to save money, you should give homeless people places to live. I wish more than anything that Portland would do the same thing. The homeless situation in Portland is bad enough that there are some areas I'd rather just avoid. the costs of homelessness and the things that homeless people do is insane. If it turned out that a state actually saved money by giving away houses to homeless people, would you want that to be applied to other states? Deciding to spend public money to provide a social benefit is one thing. Making a pronouncement that people should not be allowed to earn profits until said social benefit is provided is quite another. I mean isn't the only step from the existing Utah policy to AOC's stated goal paying for the policy using taxes levied on landlord profits. (And levying taxes on specific economic activity as a matter of policy is already a thing that is commonly done in America so that's not even anything new). Taking a step back I think people tend to vastly overestimate the effect economic policy has on growth/economic wellbeing. Per capita GDP growth growth rates in North America and western Europe are more or less matched when averaged over the past 100 years. Significantly lower in Europe between 1913 and 1950, significantly higher in Europe between 1950 and 1970 as the continent rebuilt after the wars. Entirely matched between 1970 and now. From 1960s French style state ownership of large segments of the economy to American style free markets. It all comes out in a wash, given at least somewhat free markets. Taxing specific types of economic activity typically occurs when the government is trying to discourage certain behaviors. Think sin taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco. But taxing rental housing? That’s just dumb policy. And I disagree with the idea that fiscal regulation and economic policy has no impact. It clearly does. The impact is quite obvious when you look at failed states like Venezuela. And there is no shortage of examples where deregulation boosted economic activity. Edit: Just to hammer home how stupid taxing rental housing is — taxes raise prices. It is completely idiotic to address homelessness and access to housing by raising the price of housing. There are all kinds of problems with housing, but I actually quite firmly believe that you shouldn't be able to make a profit off land ownership itself. How that can be made to work I don't know, but massive taxes on profits from renting or selling real estate would be a good start. Also, your examples are lacking. All kinds of industries are taxed and/or subsidized directly. Generally when the government wants to encourage or discourage some type of activity. Not necessarily for individuals' health as in the case of tobacco, but in the case of societal benefit, as in the case of agriculture. Discouraging running land ownership as a money making scheme can be seen as a societal benefit.
You should read up about a Land value tax. It's a tax favoured by economists (and many on the right). It reduces inequality and doesn't distort markets like many other taxes do like corporate taxes, property taxes etc.
The wiki is a decent starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
On June 06 2019 18:05 Slydie wrote:The problem is that too many people with money wants to live in big cities, forcing some to homelessness. Even forcing the prices down does not work, the market always finds a way, and it Sweden this created a mess including 6th hand rental contracts as noone would ever let go of their underpriced rental contracts! I don't think there is a magical quickfix, but the governement itself building homes has been tried with varying degrees of success, in Vienna they have done this for a very long time, and the city goverment is now a powerful landlord balancing the market for the benefit of the citezens. "The Sails" of Napoli shows how badly this can go, though, no magical solutions available... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.it/20190517/naples-starts-demolition-of-notorious-crime-ridden-scampia-buildings/amp
Forcing prices down does not work because it's bad policy. Price controls (such as restricting rent) have been shown time and time again to only make the problem worse. The problem with a price ceiling is two fold. On the one hand you increase demand because the price is artificially low. On the other hand you decrease supply because it'll be unprofitable to build the homes for an artificially low price. Quite frankly anyone proposing rent controls is economically illiterate.
In fact the solution is relatively simple. It's to relax zoning laws as Tokyo did:
In the 121 sq km of San Francisco, the population grew by about the same number over 20 years, from 746,000 to 865,000 — a rise of 16 per cent. Yet whereas the price of a home in San Francisco and London has increased 231 per cent and 441 per cent respectively, Minato ward has absorbed its population boom with price rises of just 45 per cent, much of which came after the Bank of Japan launched its big monetary stimulus in 2013.
“The Japanese system is extremely laissez-faire. It really is the minimum. And it’s extremely centralised and standardised. That means it is highly flexible in responding to social and economic change,” says Okata.
As bad loans to developers brought Japan’s financial system to the brink of collapse in the 1990s, the government relaxed development rules, culminating in the Urban Renaissance Law of 2002, which made it easier to rezone land. Office sites were repurposed for new housing. “To help the economy recover from the bubble, the country eased regulation on urban development,” says Ichikawa.
The problem with excessive zoning is that you're artificially restricting supply which leads to higher prices. Sometimes it's really just that simple.
|
Both Sweden and Denmark have tries to regulate rental prices and I think it worked our pretty badly:
-Some rental contracts are frozen at some as low as 1/4 orf the market price.
-Those contracts get a hughe value! They are sold on the black market, 2nd 3rd etc. hand rental is common and nobody in their right mind would ever cancel a contract that valuable.
-The housing market will still be equally cutthroat when there is a shortage of homes.
-Landlords find loopholes wherever they can to make money, like huge deposits and forcing people to do reforms even after short stays.
IMO, this solves absolutely nothing! The market finds a way...
|
In São Paulo, since 2014 there is a progressive tax on underutilized properties, so the longer it's kept without anyone living/working in it, the higher the tax. I find it to be an interesting mechanism, but it's still early to tell how well it's working, given that the tax kicks in slowly, how a lot of the underutilization problems are related to properties in the center of the city whose ownership is uncertain/stuck in courts, and that it requires a city government willing to go against landlord interests.
I'm not a big fan of rent control because of how it affects building/renovation incentives, nevermind the perverted current/future tenant incentives Slydie points out. I'd rather see a mix of tax on idle properties, zoning deregulation and government subsidies/construction.
|
On June 07 2019 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 00:53 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership? I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar. What do you think someone deserves to be compensated for as an owner? Third-party usage. Who are the first two parties?
I was referring to usage by anyone other than the owner.
|
On June 07 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:53 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership? I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar. What do you think someone deserves to be compensated for as an owner? Third-party usage. Who are the first two parties? I was referring to usage by anyone other than the owner.
If they are compensated for the usage where does the profit come from?
|
On June 07 2019 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:53 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 00:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 06 2019 19:19 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2019 18:03 Velr wrote:
Forbidding to make a profit from land/property you own seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm fully on board with hard regulations that make property owners responsible to keep their stuff in a good condition, just offering an appartment for rent and letting it go to shit while making a profit should be plain illegal.
Raising rents just for the sake of generating more rent also shouldn't be allowed, if you want to raise the rent on an appartment you own, you should need a reason aside from "more profit" to do it. It's completely absurd that people can buy up real estate and make a living off the rent. It has 0 added value. Worse still, in some cities it isn't even worth renting out the real estate, so it sits there empty until the time is right to sell it again, at a "healthy" profit, of course. I never expected to see this kind of post from you. Zero added economic value? That is sheer economic illiteracy. Residential, commercial, and industrial stock has tons of added value. These are some of the most expensive capital investments that one can make. And it's not just the initial expenditure to build a building. Ongoing maintenance and renovation are very expensive. This shit doesn't just happen on its own. Homes don't magically regenerate. Someone has to do it, often at great cost. And that's before we even touch the issues of the risk associated real estate investing. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong when you invest in and lease property. Bad tenants are a thing. Property investors should absolutely be allowed to earn a profit off of their real estate investments given all of these costs and risks. Is there any distinction to you between being compensated for work or being compensated for having ownership? I can think of lots of distinctions. And I can also think of ways in which they are similar. What do you think someone deserves to be compensated for as an owner? Third-party usage. Who are the first two parties? I was referring to usage by anyone other than the owner. If they are compensated for the usage where does the profit come from?
The profit is part of the compensation. It's a basic component of price-setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
