5 ms·

By renting a home, I can let somebody else tie up a million dollars in capital and all I have to pay them is a few thousand a month. This seems like a great dea

By renting a home, I can let somebody else tie up a million dollars in capital and all I have to pay them is a few thousand a month. This seems like a great deal for me, why do you want to ban me from engaging in this transaction?

MagicPropmaker 7y ago
It his gateway to having the Government own all property and no private ownership of land.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Having the option to rent is a gateway to having the government own all property? You're going to have to explain your logic a bit, because so far your position sounds ridiculously wrong.
  - dgzl 7y ago
    I think they were talking about the GP's hypothetical scenario, where renting would be llegal.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      So the claim is that verisimilitude's suggestion, that renting would be illegal, is a gateway the government owning all property and private ownership being illegal? I don't see how it's reasonable to suppose that would be the result. I also don't see how MagicPropmaker thinks that's what verisimilitude was thinking. Am I missing something? [Edit: I mean, I can see that renting being illegal is a restriction on use of property. That's a long distance from private property itself being illegal, though, and I don't see any reason to suppose that would be the end result - either the desired end result or the actual one.]
petra 7y ago
Housing is such a big problem. And a collective thing. The key to solving it is to make sure everyone is focused on affordable housing. Once you got a impactful part of society focused on something else, for example extracting rent - you've lost. That's why Germany managed to create a working, affordable housing system after ww2. And that's why Israel, in it's early years, managed to do the same, and offer affordable housing to everyone,while working under dire economic situation.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  we need housing to be affordable (for everyone), not affordable housing.
- djakjxnanjak 7y ago
  I think the solution is clear. Legalize tall buildings. Requiring someone to own or rent thousands of square feet of land to get access to hundreds of square feet of housing is guaranteed to lead to shortages.
  - thatfrenchguy 7y ago
    And abolish prop 13 in California and other tax pyramid schemes ? Especially for entities that are not people.
    - r00fus 7y ago
      I wonder why even with a super majority, Dems still haven’t raised split-roll for removing prop13 for corporations.
      - Ericson2314 7y ago
        A very good question!
  - zzzzzzzza 7y ago
    Land value taxes. What's better than legalizing tall buildings, is incentivizing tall buildings.
LetItSnow 7y ago
In steeply appreciating markets, those people didn't tie up a million dollars. Just five or so years ago, a million dollar house sold for $500,000 (in some markets).
- zxcmx 7y ago
  And maybe only put $25,000 down....
- munk-a 7y ago
  A steeply appreciating market is either an indication of a bubble or that the previous valuation of assets was highly inaccurate. They're market inefficiencies that, sure, people will try and arbitrage, but they're not the norm... except that the housing market is really weird due to the incredible illiquidity and non-divisibility of assets.
wonthegame 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking may help you understand the parent comments train of thought
jlokier 7y ago
So I pay a few thousand a month; it's cheaper than the few thousand the owner paid back when that was the price (it's only a notional "million" in capital because they bought it decades ago for a few low thousands.) In exchange for my illusory benefit of paying "only" a few thousand every month, I get: - To keep the remaining 30% of my salary (as ever rising rents creep past 70% of take-home). - Enjoy the 10% yearly rent raise. - No security, can be kicked out any time (it happens every few years, sometimes a week before Christmas). - No permission to paint anything. - Forbidden to have pets of any kind. Could move, but can't find anywhere within commuting distance that allows pets and is in the same price bracket. - Can't change anything structural, like a window for a nicer one. - Can't change the locks to something I'd like. - Can't try out the fancy new home control tech (Nest etc) - Can't fit solar panels, even if subsidised by a power company, as the offer is only to homeowners. - Forbidden to "run a business" from home (it says in the contract), and forbidden to register a company at my home address. - No guests allowed to stay over longer than X days. - When I hit retirement age and soon after that run out of money, I'll be evicted and homeless, because pension isn't enough to pay the rent, and rent is rising faster than inflation anyway. State benefits exist for pensioners, but the housing component intended to cover rent is widely known to be less than real rents. So fair enough, I avoid buying somewhere with a million in capital. Instead I spend more than a million in rent over a working lifetime. Sure would have been nice to live in a stable home during it, to enjoy the freedom to do what I want in the home, and to stay there at the end.
- castlecrasher2 7y ago
  I guess the question is are you willing to concede that you owning a home is incompatible with you living in SV?
  - urda 7y ago
    That's odd, because I know many (including myself) that own property in SV and other high-expense cities on the West Coast. So I don't think that's true.
    - 7y ago
elyobo 7y ago
I think GP meant letting (although that would have the same effect).

MagicPropmaker 7y ago

It his gateway to having the Government own all property and no private ownership of land.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Having the option to rent is a gateway to having the government own all property? You're going to have to explain your logic a bit, because so far your position sounds ridiculously wrong.
- dgzl 7y ago
  I think they were talking about the GP's hypothetical scenario, where renting would be llegal.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    So the claim is that verisimilitude's suggestion, that renting would be illegal, is a gateway the government owning all property and private ownership being illegal? I don't see how it's reasonable to suppose that would be the result. I also don't see how MagicPropmaker thinks that's what verisimilitude was thinking. Am I missing something? [Edit: I mean, I can see that renting being illegal is a restriction on use of property. That's a long distance from private property itself being illegal, though, and I don't see any reason to suppose that would be the end result - either the desired end result or the actual one.]

petra 7y ago

Housing is such a big problem. And a collective thing. The key to solving it is to make sure everyone is focused on affordable housing. Once you got a impactful part of society focused on something else, for example extracting rent - you've lost. That's why Germany managed to create a working, affordable housing system after ww2. And that's why Israel, in it's early years, managed to do the same, and offer affordable housing to everyone,while working under dire economic situation.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
we need housing to be affordable (for everyone), not affordable housing.
djakjxnanjak 7y ago
I think the solution is clear. Legalize tall buildings. Requiring someone to own or rent thousands of square feet of land to get access to hundreds of square feet of housing is guaranteed to lead to shortages.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  And abolish prop 13 in California and other tax pyramid schemes ? Especially for entities that are not people.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    I wonder why even with a super majority, Dems still haven’t raised split-roll for removing prop13 for corporations.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      A very good question!
- zzzzzzzza 7y ago
  Land value taxes. What's better than legalizing tall buildings, is incentivizing tall buildings.

LetItSnow 7y ago

In steeply appreciating markets, those people didn't tie up a million dollars. Just five or so years ago, a million dollar house sold for $500,000 (in some markets).

zxcmx 7y ago
And maybe only put $25,000 down....
munk-a 7y ago
A steeply appreciating market is either an indication of a bubble or that the previous valuation of assets was highly inaccurate. They're market inefficiencies that, sure, people will try and arbitrage, but they're not the norm... except that the housing market is really weird due to the incredible illiquidity and non-divisibility of assets.

wonthegame 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking may help you understand the parent comments train of thought

jlokier 7y ago

So I pay a few thousand a month; it's cheaper than the few thousand the owner paid back when that was the price (it's only a notional "million" in capital because they bought it decades ago for a few low thousands.) In exchange for my illusory benefit of paying "only" a few thousand every month, I get: - To keep the remaining 30% of my salary (as ever rising rents creep past 70% of take-home). - Enjoy the 10% yearly rent raise. - No security, can be kicked out any time (it happens every few years, sometimes a week before Christmas). - No permission to paint anything. - Forbidden to have pets of any kind. Could move, but can't find anywhere within commuting distance that allows pets and is in the same price bracket. - Can't change anything structural, like a window for a nicer one. - Can't change the locks to something I'd like. - Can't try out the fancy new home control tech (Nest etc) - Can't fit solar panels, even if subsidised by a power company, as the offer is only to homeowners. - Forbidden to "run a business" from home (it says in the contract), and forbidden to register a company at my home address. - No guests allowed to stay over longer than X days. - When I hit retirement age and soon after that run out of money, I'll be evicted and homeless, because pension isn't enough to pay the rent, and rent is rising faster than inflation anyway. State benefits exist for pensioners, but the housing component intended to cover rent is widely known to be less than real rents. So fair enough, I avoid buying somewhere with a million in capital. Instead I spend more than a million in rent over a working lifetime. Sure would have been nice to live in a stable home during it, to enjoy the freedom to do what I want in the home, and to stay there at the end.

castlecrasher2 7y ago
I guess the question is are you willing to concede that you owning a home is incompatible with you living in SV?
- urda 7y ago
  That's odd, because I know many (including myself) that own property in SV and other high-expense cities on the West Coast. So I don't think that's true.
  - 7y ago

elyobo 7y ago

I think GP meant letting (although that would have the same effect).