5 ms·

Exactly. The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. I wonder if enough AirBnB in the area could actually drive property cost down, bec

Exactly. The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. I wonder if enough AirBnB in the area could actually drive property cost down, because nobody would like to live there long term and then essentially wiping off all the profits people made by renting out. In the end only the AirBnB would really profit. It's a business model clearly bases on a loophole and should be closed. If someone wants to run a bed and breakfast they should get a suitable commercial property.

spamizbad 5y ago
> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. One of the major "lessons" of the famous book Rich Dad, Poor Dad was that wise wealthy people view housing as an asset and investment, whereas poor and middle class people merely view it as an expense. This thinking is now deeply ingrained in our culture.
- diognesofsinope 5y ago
  I mean, it is an investment. However the success of that investment basically means depriving future generations of a home, which they are fine with doing, clearly.
- whoaisme 5y ago
  Which is crazy. Wealthy people can afford to view housing as an asset because they are wealthy. Poor people can't afford property because they are poor. That's like saying feudal lords were wise for viewing grain as an asset and not an expense. Wild.
  - alpha42 5y ago
    Clearly you need to play more civilization builder games. Grain is the most important asset, without it you can neither feed your people nor sell the excess to your starving neighbors for sweet gold coins.
    - dogorman 5y ago
      Games where you role-play as a feudal lord? You're either making his point for him, or missing it.
    - whoaisme 5y ago
      Honestly I wish people would shut the fuck up if the only thing they can add is a beaten to death reference to a video game. It's not funny or clever and I have no desire to humor your sad need for social validation from anonymous people.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I read that book a very long time ago and don't remember the part you reference, but from the perspective of someone who wants to live in a house, that house should be considered a liability, not an asset/investment. But sure, owning housing that you don't intend to live in (and intend to rent out, or renovate and sell) is an investment. The problem (at least in the US) is that everyone (of any economic means) seems to think of their primary home as an investment, which is in part why our housing market is so distorted. Everyone believes they're entitled to sell their house for significantly more than they paid for it, which is weird: land may increase in value for a variety of reasons, but houses just get older and crappier over time, and should only drop in value (with some bumps back up for major renovations).
cletus 5y ago
> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. Well, not this exactly. I mean when you rent a property, you're renting it from someone else who owns it. That's what residential property is. So there's really only three broad alternatives here: 1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale; 2. They're owned privately. This could be by individuals or a corporation or a cooperative of some sort; or 3. There is no rental market. Now as I mentioned in another comment: I do support not having unfettered use of residential property as an investment vehicle but you also need private ownership. Personally I think a good start would be that the beneficial owner of any property is a resident of that city or state and if they're not, they get charged _much_ higher property tax. You'll note I said "beneficial owner" there too. You want to hide behind an LLC or corporation to own your property without declaring your ownership? Fine. Pay for that privilege. Cities should be by and for the residents in them, not hedge funds. There are a couple of corner cases worth mentioning: 1. Rental buildings (ie not condos) should probably be treated differently than, say, individual units; and 2. I firmly believe that every mobile home park in the country should be able to forcibly purchase the land they're on as a cooperative from the current owner at fair market value. Hedge funds buying up the land mobile homes are on is really a disgusting form of capitalism, preying on some of the most vulnerable.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  >1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale; Not me! I've heard great things about living in Vienna where about 25% of housing is government owned.
  - cletus 5y ago
    Have you heard of Grenfell Tower?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Have you heard of [Insert private housing unit that failed catastrophically]? Anecdotes are not data.

spamizbad 5y ago

> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. One of the major "lessons" of the famous book Rich Dad, Poor Dad was that wise wealthy people view housing as an asset and investment, whereas poor and middle class people merely view it as an expense. This thinking is now deeply ingrained in our culture.

diognesofsinope 5y ago
I mean, it is an investment. However the success of that investment basically means depriving future generations of a home, which they are fine with doing, clearly.
whoaisme 5y ago
Which is crazy. Wealthy people can afford to view housing as an asset because they are wealthy. Poor people can't afford property because they are poor. That's like saying feudal lords were wise for viewing grain as an asset and not an expense. Wild.
- alpha42 5y ago
  Clearly you need to play more civilization builder games. Grain is the most important asset, without it you can neither feed your people nor sell the excess to your starving neighbors for sweet gold coins.
  - dogorman 5y ago
    Games where you role-play as a feudal lord? You're either making his point for him, or missing it.
  - whoaisme 5y ago
    Honestly I wish people would shut the fuck up if the only thing they can add is a beaten to death reference to a video game. It's not funny or clever and I have no desire to humor your sad need for social validation from anonymous people.
kelnos 5y ago
I read that book a very long time ago and don't remember the part you reference, but from the perspective of someone who wants to live in a house, that house should be considered a liability, not an asset/investment. But sure, owning housing that you don't intend to live in (and intend to rent out, or renovate and sell) is an investment. The problem (at least in the US) is that everyone (of any economic means) seems to think of their primary home as an investment, which is in part why our housing market is so distorted. Everyone believes they're entitled to sell their house for significantly more than they paid for it, which is weird: land may increase in value for a variety of reasons, but houses just get older and crappier over time, and should only drop in value (with some bumps back up for major renovations).

cletus 5y ago

> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. Well, not this exactly. I mean when you rent a property, you're renting it from someone else who owns it. That's what residential property is. So there's really only three broad alternatives here: 1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale; 2. They're owned privately. This could be by individuals or a corporation or a cooperative of some sort; or 3. There is no rental market. Now as I mentioned in another comment: I do support not having unfettered use of residential property as an investment vehicle but you also need private ownership. Personally I think a good start would be that the beneficial owner of any property is a resident of that city or state and if they're not, they get charged _much_ higher property tax. You'll note I said "beneficial owner" there too. You want to hide behind an LLC or corporation to own your property without declaring your ownership? Fine. Pay for that privilege. Cities should be by and for the residents in them, not hedge funds. There are a couple of corner cases worth mentioning: 1. Rental buildings (ie not condos) should probably be treated differently than, say, individual units; and 2. I firmly believe that every mobile home park in the country should be able to forcibly purchase the land they're on as a cooperative from the current owner at fair market value. Hedge funds buying up the land mobile homes are on is really a disgusting form of capitalism, preying on some of the most vulnerable.

cool_dude85 5y ago
>1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale; Not me! I've heard great things about living in Vienna where about 25% of housing is government owned.
- cletus 5y ago
  Have you heard of Grenfell Tower?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Have you heard of [Insert private housing unit that failed catastrophically]? Anecdotes are not data.