3 ms·
> hurts a lot of people with mortgage How so? The only downside (for people who already own a house) I can see of building more housing is that prices wouldn'
by commandlinefan 5y ago
> hurts a lot of people with mortgage
How so? The only downside (for people who already own a house) I can see of building more housing is that prices wouldn't rise as much as they historically have. AFAICT rising house prices only benefit real estate speculators, not actual homeowners who live in the house - my taxes are a percentage of the appraised value of the house, and they go up every year to the point where I'm starting to wonder if I'll be able to afford them in 10 years. I can't really "cash out" the value I have in the house either - or I could, but then I'd have to buy another house to live in at the same inflated prices.
- davidw 5y agoIn something that I'm sure is entirely a coincidence, states with raging housing crisis like California and Oregon limit the amount taxes can go up every year, so that homeowners see a lot of benefits and fewer direct costs of the rising prices.
- commandlinefan 5y agoTexas limits the increases to 10% per year. And it goes up by the full 10% every year. 10% every year for just 5 years is a 61% increase. Compound interest hurts taxpayers the same way it helps investors.
- davidw 5y ago10% is a lot healthier than Oregon's 3%.
- loco5niner 5y agoYikes! You're wanting to raise my monthly payment by $170 per month after 5 years. I saved for years to buy a house so I would have a stable platform for raising a family, not to get rich. It sounds like you're just wanting to punish people who saved their money and put it in a wise investment, when actually, that's what everyone should be doing.
- davidw 5y agoA stable investment is not something going up 25% a year. Taxes are 'skin in the game' for homeowners in terms of being part of a society that isn't making it impossible for many people to ever own a home.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]