3 ms·

Some of the countries with the lowest homeownership rates [1] are also amongst the most financially secure on the planet. In Switzerland only 43% of households

Some of the countries with the lowest homeownership rates [1] are also amongst the most financially secure on the planet. In Switzerland only 43% of households own their home and swiss households are, on average, way more secure than their american counterparts. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...

freddie_mercury 8y ago
And some aren't. I don't follow your point, could you elaborate?
tempuser24 8y ago
I agree with freddie_mecury I am not sure I see the argument or what you mean by "financially secure". But if I can guess at your point I would say that if "financially secure" means having cash then it would make sense that higher percentage renter countries would be that. Another point I'd like to add is the US isn't far from Switzerland on that list. Also Singapore being in the #2 spot with 90% home ownership, but in my opinion Singapore is considered a wealthy country[1] with a GDP close to the US. And lastly I will say that the sample size on is limited to about 25% of countries in the world, though there are most of the developed ones. [1]https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/gdp-per-capita
- erispoe 8y ago
  Homeownership isn't necessary to achieve financial security and/or build equity. The idea that it is, all the time, everywhere, a necessary step does not hold. In countries where the state does not heavily subsidize homeownership via tax incentives (Switzerland or Germany by contrast with USA or France), many households choose to invest in other assets. On the contrary, the fact that states have to subsidize homeownership to make it a competitive investment for households (at the expense of renters paying taxes and not benefitting from incentives), is evidence that in a tax-neutral environment, homeownership doesn't make much sense. Singapore is misleading, because 82% of the population actually lives in public housing (HDB). I suppose they're counted as "homeownership" because they are leased for 99 years [1], but that's a strong authoritative state with central planning and management of housing. Lease doesn't build that much equity because at you get closer to the term the value of the lease naturally declines. And you're not free to sell or buy to who you want. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

freddie_mercury 8y ago

And some aren't. I don't follow your point, could you elaborate?

tempuser24 8y ago

I agree with freddie_mecury I am not sure I see the argument or what you mean by "financially secure". But if I can guess at your point I would say that if "financially secure" means having cash then it would make sense that higher percentage renter countries would be that. Another point I'd like to add is the US isn't far from Switzerland on that list. Also Singapore being in the #2 spot with 90% home ownership, but in my opinion Singapore is considered a wealthy country[1] with a GDP close to the US. And lastly I will say that the sample size on is limited to about 25% of countries in the world, though there are most of the developed ones. [1]https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/gdp-per-capita

erispoe 8y ago
Homeownership isn't necessary to achieve financial security and/or build equity. The idea that it is, all the time, everywhere, a necessary step does not hold. In countries where the state does not heavily subsidize homeownership via tax incentives (Switzerland or Germany by contrast with USA or France), many households choose to invest in other assets. On the contrary, the fact that states have to subsidize homeownership to make it a competitive investment for households (at the expense of renters paying taxes and not benefitting from incentives), is evidence that in a tax-neutral environment, homeownership doesn't make much sense. Singapore is misleading, because 82% of the population actually lives in public housing (HDB). I suppose they're counted as "homeownership" because they are leased for 99 years [1], but that's a strong authoritative state with central planning and management of housing. Lease doesn't build that much equity because at you get closer to the term the value of the lease naturally declines. And you're not free to sell or buy to who you want. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore