4 ms·
I think they're arguing that the real contribution of home ownership is the incentive to regularly invest in an appreciating asset, not the fact that the asset
by majos 7y ago
I think they're arguing that the real contribution of home ownership is the incentive to regularly invest in an appreciating asset, not the fact that the asset is a house. I don't think they're arguing that the incentive is irrational.
- marcosdumay 7y agoExcept that housing is not an asset, it's a fundamental good without with people can barely survive. Making it appreciate is very problematic.
- wingspar 7y agoIs a vacation home an asset?
- marcosdumay 7y agoWell, ok, I have taken it a bit too far. Anything you can use or sell is technically an asset, even if it's more expensive to maintain than you would get on a sale (so even boats qualify). But policy should never treat it as an asset. For policy, it should be a consumable good that only happens to take a very long time to consume.
- kgwgk 7y agoThe building depreciates and eventually is worth zilch unless you spend to keep its value (maintenance), but the land where the building stands is not a consumable.
- chii 7y ago> Making it appreciate is very problematic. nobody is "making it appreciate" - it's a natural consequence of people desiring a home, and the supply not keeping up (whether by physical constraints, or by political/policy constraints).
- intarga 7y ago> nobody is "making it appreciate" > political/policy constraints You just found exactly who is making it appreciate