|
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 |
On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there.
The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself.
|
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me.
|
On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me.
The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen.
|
On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. Private ownership doesn't have to be a problem and can be a non-issue.
We're discussing it now because it has become a problem in placed, both in and the US and outside of it.
|
On June 07 2019 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there. The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself.
The problem is that when a house is built it has an owner, that owner can choose to occupy or not occupy. by building it they have incurred certain costs and liabilities (mortgage). In order to maintain their own financial solvency they must either sell the house at a price > cost + liabilities or rent it at a price > liabilities. This essentially sets a floor for the cost of the house in the rental or sale market. in the case of a sale, how many people have the capital available to purchase the house? not many, and the nicer the house the fewer the people. If the house is so nice that it is beyond the affordability of the residents of the area then the house will eventually foreclose and may remain empty for years (should the original owner choose not to live there). The alternative is renting where it is much easier to pass the threshold of price>liabilities because little capital is required. and in this way a landord adds value, by bearing the liability into the future so that the current residents (who dont have the capital to spend) can live there at an affordable price.
in summary it is not a given that a house will be occupied just by its existance.
|
On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen.
If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income?
thought experiment -
+ Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common?
|
|
|
On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common?
Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes.
|
On June 07 2019 23:14 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there. The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself. The problem is that when a house is built it has an owner, that owner can choose to occupy or not occupy. by building it they have incurred certain costs and liabilities (mortgage). In order to maintain their own financial solvency they must either sell the house at a price > cost + liabilities or rent it at a price > liabilities. This essentially sets a floor for the cost of the house in the rental or sale market. in the case of a sale, how many people have the capital available to purchase the house? not many, and the nicer the house the fewer the people. If the house is so nice that it is beyond the affordability of the residents of the area then the house will eventually foreclose and may remain empty for years (should the original owner choose not to live there). The alternative is renting where it is much easier to pass the threshold of price>liabilities because little capital is required. and in this way a landord adds value, by bearing the liability into the future so that the current residents (who dont have the capital to spend) can live there at an affordable price. in summary it is not a given that a house will be occupied just by its existance. yes?
We're not talking about the risk of construction, this discussion has been about people buying up houses an mass to drive up prices and profiting off of that.
|
On June 07 2019 23:20 JimmiC wrote:
American Tax laws (kwark can say if I'm wrong or if it changed post bubble burst) encouraged owning a second vacation house. It certainly provides economic benefit to the economy. If 5 people buy 5 houses that means 5 houses built, heated, maintained, insured, so on. If they each buy 2 its 10 houses.
I think you can certainly argue if there is societal benefit to this, but there is definitely economic benefit. Sure, 10 houses > 5 houses.
But what about 5 people owning 10 houses compared to 10 people owning 10 houses?
Because we're talking about a housing shortage.
|
On June 07 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common? Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes.
In practice that wouldn't work. most of these are set up through LLCs I can establish as many LLCs as I want and each LLC can have x homes but im still getting profit. Are you capping ownership for corporations as well? How does that work with a large building. is each individual rental unit a home or is the building a home?
|
On June 07 2019 23:30 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common? Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes. How does that work with a large building. is each individual rental unit a home or is the building a home?
Worker ownership.
|
On June 07 2019 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there. The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself. The problem is that when a house is built it has an owner, that owner can choose to occupy or not occupy. by building it they have incurred certain costs and liabilities (mortgage). In order to maintain their own financial solvency they must either sell the house at a price > cost + liabilities or rent it at a price > liabilities. This essentially sets a floor for the cost of the house in the rental or sale market. in the case of a sale, how many people have the capital available to purchase the house? not many, and the nicer the house the fewer the people. If the house is so nice that it is beyond the affordability of the residents of the area then the house will eventually foreclose and may remain empty for years (should the original owner choose not to live there). The alternative is renting where it is much easier to pass the threshold of price>liabilities because little capital is required. and in this way a landord adds value, by bearing the liability into the future so that the current residents (who dont have the capital to spend) can live there at an affordable price. in summary it is not a given that a house will be occupied just by its existance. yes? We're not talking about the risk of construction, this discussion has been about people buying up houses an mass to drive up prices and profiting off of that.
your missing the point. for a house to be bought en masse it has to be built, by someone, for some price... ergo see above specifically regarding the part on why the price is what it is and how not everyone can afford to buy it from the guy that built it.
|
On June 07 2019 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:30 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common? Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes. How does that work with a large building. is each individual rental unit a home or is the building a home? Worker ownership.
What if i am the only employee of this LLC ( i know this is essentially legislation crafting and is more detail than we usually get into, but in order to have this discussion it needs to be based in practical facts to find out if its even feasible).
P.S. I dont disagree that something needs to be done, but I enjoy playing devils advocate and seeing how far it goes.
|
On June 07 2019 23:34 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:30 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common? Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes. How does that work with a large building. is each individual rental unit a home or is the building a home? Worker ownership. What if i am the only employee of this LLC ( i know this is essentially legislation crafting and is more detail than we usually get into, but in order to have this discussion it needs to be based in practical facts to find out if its even feasible). P.S. I dont disagree that something needs to be done, but I enjoy playing devils advocate and seeing how far it goes.
You get to own X properties and/or Y shares of properties. Humans "own" things, not legal entities.
|
On June 07 2019 23:32 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 23:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there. The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself. The problem is that when a house is built it has an owner, that owner can choose to occupy or not occupy. by building it they have incurred certain costs and liabilities (mortgage). In order to maintain their own financial solvency they must either sell the house at a price > cost + liabilities or rent it at a price > liabilities. This essentially sets a floor for the cost of the house in the rental or sale market. in the case of a sale, how many people have the capital available to purchase the house? not many, and the nicer the house the fewer the people. If the house is so nice that it is beyond the affordability of the residents of the area then the house will eventually foreclose and may remain empty for years (should the original owner choose not to live there). The alternative is renting where it is much easier to pass the threshold of price>liabilities because little capital is required. and in this way a landord adds value, by bearing the liability into the future so that the current residents (who dont have the capital to spend) can live there at an affordable price. in summary it is not a given that a house will be occupied just by its existance. yes? We're not talking about the risk of construction, this discussion has been about people buying up houses an mass to drive up prices and profiting off of that. your missing the point. for a house to be bought en masse it has to be built, by someone, for some price... ergo see above specifically regarding the part on why the price is what it is and how not everyone can afford to buy it from the guy that built it. Yes houses have to be built and there is some risk of building a house people can't afford. But they could also just built a cheaper house and ensure a sale because there is a housing shortage. Its a risk/reward for the builder and that is fine.
What people have been talking about is rich people coming in to buy the houses to sit on them and wait for the value to increase because by buying houses and not using them they are artificially decreasing supply in a market that already has to much demand.
The guy buying the house to sell on for a profit is not contributing to the economy in any meaningful way.
Buying them to rent to a 3e party follows the same line. There is a shortage of houses so workers cannot afford them. Rich people buy these houses to rent at high prices that workers can barely afford working 2/3 jobs, making money doing basically nothing. If the rich people are not in the picture then the house would stand empty and values would lower until the workers can afford them or (more likely) builders would stop building houses people cannot afford to buy and instead build houses that people can afford.
The houses market, that is already strained at the best of times, is further skewed by these actions.
|
On June 07 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:34 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:30 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common? Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes. How does that work with a large building. is each individual rental unit a home or is the building a home? Worker ownership. What if i am the only employee of this LLC ( i know this is essentially legislation crafting and is more detail than we usually get into, but in order to have this discussion it needs to be based in practical facts to find out if its even feasible). P.S. I dont disagree that something needs to be done, but I enjoy playing devils advocate and seeing how far it goes. You get to own X properties and/or Y shares of properties. Humans "own" things, not legal entities. Fixing the housing market (nigh impossible) is probably easier then reforming the entire basis for legal rights regarding corporate entities, broken tho that system is.
|
On June 07 2019 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:34 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:30 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 23:16 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2019 22:44 Velr wrote:
Isn't that basically the same argument people make when they talk about selling weapons to Saudia Arabia & co?
I live in the old part of a small city. The flat i rented before was owned by the city, my new slightly bigger and nicer one by a private Company, it is more expensive but just about what could be expected when you compare the two.
I couldn't tell the diffrence between my two "landlords", if not for the letter head on the Bills/Contracts i have to pay/sign.
As long as the local goverment is monitoring closely what exactly is built/renovated and how stuff is priced, private ownership really does seem like a non issue for me. The problem highlighted in the US, is that once the regulating/legislating body is captured by private interests, this doesn't happen. If it werent captured by private interests what would you expect it to do? cap profits on rental income? Why should rental income be treated differently than any other income? thought experiment - + Show Spoiler +What would happen if leasing of property altogether was illegal. I assume the value of property would fall (at least on the commercial side, not sure if the single family residential market would be impacted as much). If the value of property falls so do property taxes, which means state funding would have to be re-worked, all large residential buildings would have to be converted to condos etc. Would that lower the price of entry to home ownership? would more direct rent-to-own contracts become more common? Cap ownership to X homes or Y shares in homes. How does that work with a large building. is each individual rental unit a home or is the building a home? Worker ownership. What if i am the only employee of this LLC ( i know this is essentially legislation crafting and is more detail than we usually get into, but in order to have this discussion it needs to be based in practical facts to find out if its even feasible). P.S. I dont disagree that something needs to be done, but I enjoy playing devils advocate and seeing how far it goes. You get to own X properties and/or Y shares of properties. Humans "own" things, not legal entities. Fixing the housing market (nigh impossible) is probably easier then reforming the entire basis for legal rights regarding corporate entities, broken tho that system is.
Better ideas are always welcome, saying change is hard isn't helpful to anyone or anything except the status quo though imo.
|
On June 07 2019 23:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 23:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there. The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself. The problem is that when a house is built it has an owner, that owner can choose to occupy or not occupy. by building it they have incurred certain costs and liabilities (mortgage). In order to maintain their own financial solvency they must either sell the house at a price > cost + liabilities or rent it at a price > liabilities. This essentially sets a floor for the cost of the house in the rental or sale market. in the case of a sale, how many people have the capital available to purchase the house? not many, and the nicer the house the fewer the people. If the house is so nice that it is beyond the affordability of the residents of the area then the house will eventually foreclose and may remain empty for years (should the original owner choose not to live there). The alternative is renting where it is much easier to pass the threshold of price>liabilities because little capital is required. and in this way a landord adds value, by bearing the liability into the future so that the current residents (who dont have the capital to spend) can live there at an affordable price. in summary it is not a given that a house will be occupied just by its existance. yes? We're not talking about the risk of construction, this discussion has been about people buying up houses an mass to drive up prices and profiting off of that. your missing the point. for a house to be bought en masse it has to be built, by someone, for some price... ergo see above specifically regarding the part on why the price is what it is and how not everyone can afford to buy it from the guy that built it. Yes houses have to be built and there is some risk of building a house people can't afford. But they could also just built a cheaper house and ensure a sale because there is a housing shortage. Its a risk/reward for the builder and that is fine. What people have been talking about is rich people coming in to buy the houses to sit on them and wait for the value to increase because by buying houses and not using them they are artificially decreasing supply in a market that already has to much demand. The guy buying the house to sell on for a profit is not contributing to the economy in any meaningful way. Buying them to rent to a 3e party follows the same line. There is a shortage of houses so workers cannot afford them. Rich people buy these houses to rent at high prices that workers can barely afford working 2/3 jobs, making money doing basically nothing. If the rich people are not in the picture then the house would stand empty and values would lower until the workers can afford them or (more likely) builders would stop building houses people cannot afford to buy and instead build houses that people can afford.The houses market, that is already strained at the best of times, is further skewed by these actions.
Why doesn't the former owner of the house already rent at high prices?
|
On June 07 2019 23:51 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 23:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 23:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 23:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 07 2019 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2019 22:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it allows more persons to live in the area. These new Inhabitants will consume more goods from local business so local companies get an economic benefit, they will pay taxes...
I really don't see a problem with this as long as the market is regulated by laws/taxes so blatant profiteering isn't possible (or at least not easy to do). But that would also happen without someone else buying it and renting it on. Someone would live there. The landlord adds nothing that wouldn't be gained by someone directly owning the house itself. The problem is that when a house is built it has an owner, that owner can choose to occupy or not occupy. by building it they have incurred certain costs and liabilities (mortgage). In order to maintain their own financial solvency they must either sell the house at a price > cost + liabilities or rent it at a price > liabilities. This essentially sets a floor for the cost of the house in the rental or sale market. in the case of a sale, how many people have the capital available to purchase the house? not many, and the nicer the house the fewer the people. If the house is so nice that it is beyond the affordability of the residents of the area then the house will eventually foreclose and may remain empty for years (should the original owner choose not to live there). The alternative is renting where it is much easier to pass the threshold of price>liabilities because little capital is required. and in this way a landord adds value, by bearing the liability into the future so that the current residents (who dont have the capital to spend) can live there at an affordable price. in summary it is not a given that a house will be occupied just by its existance. yes? We're not talking about the risk of construction, this discussion has been about people buying up houses an mass to drive up prices and profiting off of that. your missing the point. for a house to be bought en masse it has to be built, by someone, for some price... ergo see above specifically regarding the part on why the price is what it is and how not everyone can afford to buy it from the guy that built it. Yes houses have to be built and there is some risk of building a house people can't afford. But they could also just built a cheaper house and ensure a sale because there is a housing shortage. Its a risk/reward for the builder and that is fine. What people have been talking about is rich people coming in to buy the houses to sit on them and wait for the value to increase because by buying houses and not using them they are artificially decreasing supply in a market that already has to much demand. The guy buying the house to sell on for a profit is not contributing to the economy in any meaningful way. Buying them to rent to a 3e party follows the same line. There is a shortage of houses so workers cannot afford them. Rich people buy these houses to rent at high prices that workers can barely afford working 2/3 jobs, making money doing basically nothing. If the rich people are not in the picture then the house would stand empty and values would lower until the workers can afford them or (more likely) builders would stop building houses people cannot afford to buy and instead build houses that people can afford.The houses market, that is already strained at the best of times, is further skewed by these actions. Why doesn't the former owner of the house already rent at high prices?
Often property at expensive places is inherited by several siblings. So no one wants or can buy out the others and they can't find a good agreement so they just sell the Land/House to the highest bidder.
Which is a Problem, I just think you could solve it whiteout redesigning how property works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
