4 ms·
> Once you are dead, you lose the house and the inheritance will be the same money you would get from selling the house/apartment under the regulated terms. Wh
by cortesoft 6y ago
> Once you are dead, you lose the house and the inheritance will be the same money you would get from selling the house/apartment under the regulated terms.
Where would this money come from, though? You only make money on the property when you sell it to someone else, so who is buying it? Not the next renter, because they are supposed to be buying into equity, not paying someone else's profit.
- chii 6y agothere in lies the problem - the payment in lieu of rent in the proposal is not meant to be equity, but is treated like that. I think there's some cognitive dissonance in the proposal. The idea that you can live for free is just not possible in the modern, capitalist world. Rent is something that every entity has to pay - including owners (which is the imputed rent, or the opportunity cost of the capital placed into the building/land, or the interest payment). If the gov't fronts the capital to build, but don't receive rent, then it's the same as tax payers footing the interest cost of that capital. So those who would be in this public-ownership housing is effectively receiving an interest free loan for the house, and their payment represents equity, and that's such a good deal that there'd be unlimited demand for this sort of housing.
- cortesoft 6y agoYeah, this would be even worse than the debacle that led to the housing bubble in 07. This is basically letting people 'invest' in housing with zero risk. You get all the upside of housing prices increasing with no risk if house prices decrease. This means there is zero downward pressure on housing prices, which is going to lead to even worse housing prices in the future. You can't solve skyrocketing housing prices by simply increasing access to capital... that is just going to exacerbate the problem
- mmmeff 6y agoCase in point: Student loans