4 ms·

> Individual non-business landlords cannot derive more than 50% of their income from rental properties Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure

> Individual non-business landlords cannot derive more than 50% of their income from rental properties Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees. How would you ensure they can retire and still have income via properties? I guess you can add clausal to exclude {retirement_age} ownership? Hopefully nobody uses them as proxy. Tricky huh?

medvezhenok 5y ago
> Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan. If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Extracting surplus income from workers via property rent-seeking should not be a way to fund retirement in the first place.
- hello_moto 5y ago
  > Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan It's how many retirees in high living cost around the world fetch their income (when their retirement < standard of living cost of the city). I don't see that as a problem for those who work hard and made good decisions throughout their life. > If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Riskier. Why should they? Blaming them for holding one or two properties for retirement income is pretty much scapegoating the victim of the situation given for them: they made the best investment choice and they're being told that they're part of the problem. I see many people blaming "shareholder's" greed too when it comes to investment. The truth is that majority of people are just trying to secure their future and it's hard to blame them because their choices are guided by their surrounding (what's given to them). I would look into the Government (specifically the cities, municipalities, and urban planners). They have the power to shape our environment.
  - medvezhenok 5y ago
    What about people who inherited a property and then can retire off the rent that someone pays for it? Do they deserve it for the work their parents put in? How many generations does that extend to? The point is that this eventually devolves into a feudal system of landowners and workers - it's been tried in Europe, and while it's great for the landowning class, it's not as great for the workers. > Riskier. Why should they? Yes, my point is the fact that owning/renting houses is the safest retirement option is a political choice, not a law of nature. And that political choice is specifically benefitting retires as a whole at the cost of the working population. I believe that people should be able to finance their own retirement, but via real contribution to society - yes, I have problems with stocks and other methods of passive income as well. I think they should exist, but that they should be much less advantageous than they are now. The fact that these methods are the ones chosen to promote to achieve financial independence is a large part of what leads to moral rot in America today. People see that hard work is not rewarded - financial speculation, holding real estate and other unproductive work is what is really rewarded, and that calls into question the whole American dream. So yes, I believe things need to change - and a land value tax is a step in the right direction. Also increasing capital gains to the level of the income tax. I understand how to play the current system, but I interact with lots of people (and have friends) at different income scales from the homeless to middle class to centi-millionaires and so I've seen how unfair the system is and how unequal the opportunities at the different ends are. There's also way less options for making big money in a moral way - as a society, we seem to have chosen to reward inherently immoral actions higher than moral ones.

medvezhenok 5y ago

> Properties are one of the top income generator for (pure) retirees Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan. If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Extracting surplus income from workers via property rent-seeking should not be a way to fund retirement in the first place.

hello_moto 5y ago
> Yes, and that's part of the problem - holding property shouldn't be a viable retirement plan It's how many retirees in high living cost around the world fetch their income (when their retirement < standard of living cost of the city). I don't see that as a problem for those who work hard and made good decisions throughout their life. > If they want retirement income they could sell the houses and buy an annuity or invest in productive enterprises (or buy government bonds back in the day - which is no longer an option, unfortunately). Riskier. Why should they? Blaming them for holding one or two properties for retirement income is pretty much scapegoating the victim of the situation given for them: they made the best investment choice and they're being told that they're part of the problem. I see many people blaming "shareholder's" greed too when it comes to investment. The truth is that majority of people are just trying to secure their future and it's hard to blame them because their choices are guided by their surrounding (what's given to them). I would look into the Government (specifically the cities, municipalities, and urban planners). They have the power to shape our environment.
- medvezhenok 5y ago
  What about people who inherited a property and then can retire off the rent that someone pays for it? Do they deserve it for the work their parents put in? How many generations does that extend to? The point is that this eventually devolves into a feudal system of landowners and workers - it's been tried in Europe, and while it's great for the landowning class, it's not as great for the workers. > Riskier. Why should they? Yes, my point is the fact that owning/renting houses is the safest retirement option is a political choice, not a law of nature. And that political choice is specifically benefitting retires as a whole at the cost of the working population. I believe that people should be able to finance their own retirement, but via real contribution to society - yes, I have problems with stocks and other methods of passive income as well. I think they should exist, but that they should be much less advantageous than they are now. The fact that these methods are the ones chosen to promote to achieve financial independence is a large part of what leads to moral rot in America today. People see that hard work is not rewarded - financial speculation, holding real estate and other unproductive work is what is really rewarded, and that calls into question the whole American dream. So yes, I believe things need to change - and a land value tax is a step in the right direction. Also increasing capital gains to the level of the income tax. I understand how to play the current system, but I interact with lots of people (and have friends) at different income scales from the homeless to middle class to centi-millionaires and so I've seen how unfair the system is and how unequal the opportunities at the different ends are. There's also way less options for making big money in a moral way - as a society, we seem to have chosen to reward inherently immoral actions higher than moral ones.