4 ms·

Landlords are bidding against each other because of limited supply. People with excess capital need it to go somewhere. Stocks, bonds, real estate. It's like c

by cko 6y ago

Landlords are bidding against each other because of limited supply. People with excess capital need it to go somewhere. Stocks, bonds, real estate. It's like complaining people who buy stocks are bidding up the prices. While true, there is no vitriol against stockholders vs real estate owners. One could even argue that buying real estate does more for the economy than buying stocks - you are liquidating a developer to build more properties, and banks to give loans. Buying stocks... I guess drives up the stock price, allowing the company to borrow more money?

abeppu 6y ago
This is totally the problem. The desire of investors to treat real estate as a speculative opportunity has taken a front seat, and pushed out the fundamental reality that homes are for people to live in. You see less vitriol against shareholders bidding up stock prices b/c buying a fixed amount of stock isn't a necessity -- lots of people just don't do it. But everyone needs housing. To make a different comparison, in the 2007 food crisis, when poor harvests combined with sudden enthusiasm for making ethanol from corn helped drive up food prices around the world, there was some quite legitimate vitriol. You might think the high prices help produce more grain next year (analogous to your developers). I don't think that's actually true, I'm not sure -- but even if it were, it did little to help people during the crisis.
- cko 6y ago
  I get what you're saying. What makes real estate different is it's an asset class that people happen to live in. I'm not sure of the solution though. Would the problem be worse if, say, people were limited to just one residence? Where would a rental supply come from?
  - abeppu 6y ago
    > What makes real estate different is it's an asset class that people happen to live in. You're starting with the concept of an asset class. Surely the concept of a home is more foundational than that, and should get prior consideration? I don't know of a single bullet to address the concept that the necessities of life are subject to the whims of the market, but some suggestions: - Have high vacancy taxes, with an actual inspection and enforcement mechanism. Strongly discourage buying and holding empty property (esp where renting it will "lower" its value). - Structure taxes associated with the sale of a property be inversely proportional to the time time since the last sale. If you try to flip a property in a year, you should pay an exorbitant. If you hold onto your house for 20 years, and sell when you want to move to Arizona, you can pay something more modest. - Create a space for not-for-profit housing foundations, land trusts, etc. Help fund these with the proceeds from the suggestions above. - Build nice public housing for the middle class, without stigma. A majority of Singapore lives in public housing, with flats sold for 99-year leases. Because every one does it, it's not looked down on, and residents have some political clout. - Label every house with data about what they pay in property tax, how much of a benefit they get from things like the mortgage interest deduction, and what any rental property is charging their tenants. - Teach children to shame rent-seeking behavior instead of shaming people for their bodies. - Give tenants a small deduction on their rent. When they report their rent, the IRS can easily tell if the landlords are under-reporting their income.
    - RhysU 6y ago
      > Have high vacancy taxes, with an actual inspection and enforcement mechanism. ...only such taxes will bite landlords every time they have a legitimate vacancy between tenants. > Structure taxes associated with the sale of a property be inversely proportional to the time time since the last sale. ... Only now people cannot afford to sell a recently purchased home to care for an unexpectedly ill relative in another state. Or take a new job opportunity. Or afford to move to follow their heart. Etc. > Create a space for not-for-profit housing foundations, land trusts, etc. ...only now the trusts are competing with landlords with entirely different tax structures and perverse incentives to create bureaucratic nonsense because they don't compete in the fully free market. > Build nice public housing for the middle class, without stigma. ...only now no one wants to build this because they're taxed when the new properties are vacant per your earlier proposal. And now the public is likely on the hook for losses. > Label every house with data about what they pay in property tax, how much of a benefit they get from things like the mortgage interest deduction, and what any rental property is charging their tenants. ...only now people's financial privacy is wildly violated. > Teach children to shame rent-seeking behavior instead of shaming people for their bodies. ... Only now, really? Really? Like in the schools we should teach people that providing a way for others to have a roof over their heads at considerable business risk is shameful? The ones that are presently being paid zero rent without recourse due to local edicts? > Give tenants a small deduction on their rent. ... Only now you're trusting people to not inflate their reported rent to gain illicit tax breaks. Any other unintended consequences worth spit balling?

by cko 6y ago

abeppu 6y ago

This is totally the problem. The desire of investors to treat real estate as a speculative opportunity has taken a front seat, and pushed out the fundamental reality that homes are for people to live in. You see less vitriol against shareholders bidding up stock prices b/c buying a fixed amount of stock isn't a necessity -- lots of people just don't do it. But everyone needs housing. To make a different comparison, in the 2007 food crisis, when poor harvests combined with sudden enthusiasm for making ethanol from corn helped drive up food prices around the world, there was some quite legitimate vitriol. You might think the high prices help produce more grain next year (analogous to your developers). I don't think that's actually true, I'm not sure -- but even if it were, it did little to help people during the crisis.

cko 6y ago
I get what you're saying. What makes real estate different is it's an asset class that people happen to live in. I'm not sure of the solution though. Would the problem be worse if, say, people were limited to just one residence? Where would a rental supply come from?
- abeppu 6y ago
  > What makes real estate different is it's an asset class that people happen to live in. You're starting with the concept of an asset class. Surely the concept of a home is more foundational than that, and should get prior consideration? I don't know of a single bullet to address the concept that the necessities of life are subject to the whims of the market, but some suggestions: - Have high vacancy taxes, with an actual inspection and enforcement mechanism. Strongly discourage buying and holding empty property (esp where renting it will "lower" its value). - Structure taxes associated with the sale of a property be inversely proportional to the time time since the last sale. If you try to flip a property in a year, you should pay an exorbitant. If you hold onto your house for 20 years, and sell when you want to move to Arizona, you can pay something more modest. - Create a space for not-for-profit housing foundations, land trusts, etc. Help fund these with the proceeds from the suggestions above. - Build nice public housing for the middle class, without stigma. A majority of Singapore lives in public housing, with flats sold for 99-year leases. Because every one does it, it's not looked down on, and residents have some political clout. - Label every house with data about what they pay in property tax, how much of a benefit they get from things like the mortgage interest deduction, and what any rental property is charging their tenants. - Teach children to shame rent-seeking behavior instead of shaming people for their bodies. - Give tenants a small deduction on their rent. When they report their rent, the IRS can easily tell if the landlords are under-reporting their income.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    > Have high vacancy taxes, with an actual inspection and enforcement mechanism. ...only such taxes will bite landlords every time they have a legitimate vacancy between tenants. > Structure taxes associated with the sale of a property be inversely proportional to the time time since the last sale. ... Only now people cannot afford to sell a recently purchased home to care for an unexpectedly ill relative in another state. Or take a new job opportunity. Or afford to move to follow their heart. Etc. > Create a space for not-for-profit housing foundations, land trusts, etc. ...only now the trusts are competing with landlords with entirely different tax structures and perverse incentives to create bureaucratic nonsense because they don't compete in the fully free market. > Build nice public housing for the middle class, without stigma. ...only now no one wants to build this because they're taxed when the new properties are vacant per your earlier proposal. And now the public is likely on the hook for losses. > Label every house with data about what they pay in property tax, how much of a benefit they get from things like the mortgage interest deduction, and what any rental property is charging their tenants. ...only now people's financial privacy is wildly violated. > Teach children to shame rent-seeking behavior instead of shaming people for their bodies. ... Only now, really? Really? Like in the schools we should teach people that providing a way for others to have a roof over their heads at considerable business risk is shameful? The ones that are presently being paid zero rent without recourse due to local edicts? > Give tenants a small deduction on their rent. ... Only now you're trusting people to not inflate their reported rent to gain illicit tax breaks. Any other unintended consequences worth spit balling?