6 ms·

>Statewide bans on short term rentals I live in Canada, but we have the same issues. It's going to be a very interesting cross-generational political battle.

>Statewide bans on short term rentals I live in Canada, but we have the same issues. It's going to be a very interesting cross-generational political battle. The sheer number of "normal people" who own investment properties and AirBNBs now is extraordinary. I know people scraping by working average jobs that own multiple units. Meanwhile, the younger generation can't buy a home. We've normalized the idea that real estate can't lose and everyone should own multiple properties, and we can't come back from that without one side suffering a ton of pain.

mschuster91 4y ago
At the very least we can kick out Chinese and Russian "investors" that only want a way to keep their cash safe from their dictatorship governments. That should drive down our prices and put some pressure on the elites to push for better governments at home.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  You forgot most kingdoms from the gulf. Of course, a major answer to this problem is to simply ban non-americans from buying american property, but that will implode real estate and hurt a lot of homeowners. That is the voting middle-upper class. The majority are voters. And they won't want any of that.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    > but that will implode real estate and hurt a lot of homeowners You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Homeowners need to get hurt in order for housing to be more affordable. Housing taking up huge chunks of earnings is a terrible state of affairs for citizens and the economy.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  Let them buy it, as long as we can keep building more. The problem is still that supply is artificially reduced.
  - arbitrary_name 4y ago
    What incentive do we, as a society, have for foreigners to use our land as a piggy bank? Given we already have chronic undersupply, shouldn't the default position be to prioritize citizens and others who can demonstrate a greater need?
    - epicureanideal 4y ago
      Assuming we could build more, in theory economies of scale would result from more development happening regardless of who the buyer is. And it would in theory result in overbuilding capacity for that many residents and then being left with spare capacity, the cost of which would be allocated in equal part ideally to the investor properties as well.
- raydev 4y ago
  It unfortunately is "the very least" we can do, though. > That should drive down our prices No, in Canada, foreign owned properties make up a tiny percentage of the total, so banning it doesn't actually have any impact. Works as future protection for sure, but that's all. The "foreign investors" are a convenient strawman that hides bigger underlying problems.
  - more_corn 4y ago
    Didn’t Vancouver do this to good effect recently? 20% tax on foreign buyers caused a 15% dip in home prices?
IgorPartola 4y ago
In the US there are numerous incentives for buying a home. Your interest on your mortgage is tax free, the government offers cash back, etc. Renting gives most of these incentives to the landlord instead and they aren’t necessarily passed onto the renter. Most importantly, this means that if you have cash to invest, real estate has favorable tax treatment compared to other options so you suddenly have turned housing into a market that must rise decade over decade or the economy will collapse. The way to fix this is painful but it is to revoke all incentives and to make people put down 25-50% as down payments. It will cool the market to near absolute zero short term but it will help long term in keeping housing to actually be housing.
- fritztastic 4y ago
  Maybe revoke the incentives for those who currently already own multiple properties. No sense in putting an additional financial barrier to people attempting to purchase a home to live in. Investors will be slightly affected by this but it seems like the type of measure that would deter first-time homeowners altogether- therefore exacervating the problem of so many properties being taken by people whose primary interest is profiteering, and leaving those who just want to own the place they live in the dust.
  - dexwiz 4y ago
    Many incentives are for first time buyers, or single home buyers. Taxes depend on region, but everywhere I see treats primary homes, secondary homes, and rentals as different classes of real estate. Now that doesn't mean the incentives aren't skewed. But I don't think landlords buying their 20th house are getting the same benefits as a first time buyer.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >Your interest on your mortgage is tax free, the government offers cash back, etc. I have no idea what "the governments offers cash back" means; but certainly the mortgage interest tax deduction is only available for homes in which you actually live for at least part of the year - it's not available for rental properties. You can deduct mortgage interest as an expenses if you're renting a property, but that's exactly the same as any other loan used for a business activity and not specific to real-estate.
bamboozled 4y ago
Same issues in Asia

mschuster91 4y ago

At the very least we can kick out Chinese and Russian "investors" that only want a way to keep their cash safe from their dictatorship governments. That should drive down our prices and put some pressure on the elites to push for better governments at home.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
You forgot most kingdoms from the gulf. Of course, a major answer to this problem is to simply ban non-americans from buying american property, but that will implode real estate and hurt a lot of homeowners. That is the voting middle-upper class. The majority are voters. And they won't want any of that.
- cudgy 4y ago
  > but that will implode real estate and hurt a lot of homeowners You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Homeowners need to get hurt in order for housing to be more affordable. Housing taking up huge chunks of earnings is a terrible state of affairs for citizens and the economy.
epicureanideal 4y ago
Let them buy it, as long as we can keep building more. The problem is still that supply is artificially reduced.
- arbitrary_name 4y ago
  What incentive do we, as a society, have for foreigners to use our land as a piggy bank? Given we already have chronic undersupply, shouldn't the default position be to prioritize citizens and others who can demonstrate a greater need?
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    Assuming we could build more, in theory economies of scale would result from more development happening regardless of who the buyer is. And it would in theory result in overbuilding capacity for that many residents and then being left with spare capacity, the cost of which would be allocated in equal part ideally to the investor properties as well.
raydev 4y ago
It unfortunately is "the very least" we can do, though. > That should drive down our prices No, in Canada, foreign owned properties make up a tiny percentage of the total, so banning it doesn't actually have any impact. Works as future protection for sure, but that's all. The "foreign investors" are a convenient strawman that hides bigger underlying problems.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Didn’t Vancouver do this to good effect recently? 20% tax on foreign buyers caused a 15% dip in home prices?

IgorPartola 4y ago

In the US there are numerous incentives for buying a home. Your interest on your mortgage is tax free, the government offers cash back, etc. Renting gives most of these incentives to the landlord instead and they aren’t necessarily passed onto the renter. Most importantly, this means that if you have cash to invest, real estate has favorable tax treatment compared to other options so you suddenly have turned housing into a market that must rise decade over decade or the economy will collapse. The way to fix this is painful but it is to revoke all incentives and to make people put down 25-50% as down payments. It will cool the market to near absolute zero short term but it will help long term in keeping housing to actually be housing.

fritztastic 4y ago
Maybe revoke the incentives for those who currently already own multiple properties. No sense in putting an additional financial barrier to people attempting to purchase a home to live in. Investors will be slightly affected by this but it seems like the type of measure that would deter first-time homeowners altogether- therefore exacervating the problem of so many properties being taken by people whose primary interest is profiteering, and leaving those who just want to own the place they live in the dust.
- dexwiz 4y ago
  Many incentives are for first time buyers, or single home buyers. Taxes depend on region, but everywhere I see treats primary homes, secondary homes, and rentals as different classes of real estate. Now that doesn't mean the incentives aren't skewed. But I don't think landlords buying their 20th house are getting the same benefits as a first time buyer.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>Your interest on your mortgage is tax free, the government offers cash back, etc. I have no idea what "the governments offers cash back" means; but certainly the mortgage interest tax deduction is only available for homes in which you actually live for at least part of the year - it's not available for rental properties. You can deduct mortgage interest as an expenses if you're renting a property, but that's exactly the same as any other loan used for a business activity and not specific to real-estate.

bamboozled 4y ago

Same issues in Asia