3 ms·
You are right that throwing money at it isn't a solution. But corporations should not own residencial housing and no one should be allowed to sell propery at a
by _8j50 4y ago
You are right that throwing money at it isn't a solution. But corporations should not own residencial housing and no one should be allowed to sell propery at a meaningful profit if they own multiple properties.
The government should excecise it's power of taxation to take the profits of an investment housing sell (as defined above: multiple property owner selling at profit) with something like a 95% tax on profit and use that to build competitive housing (not for the homeless but for the regular person).
It is doable politically but only if there is support with the people. This bullshit about your housing being an equity investment and other related sentiment needs to go away.
- mjevans 4y agoI agree, except E.G. retired 'snowbirds' really love a stable climate and might have two homes in different climate zones. There's also the case where someone is selling one home and moving into another. The tax break should be made if someone's primary residence is occupied for at least 35% of a tax year. A number intentionally just a tiny bit bigger than one third, so the break can only apply to a maximum of two homes, but low enough to be flexible.
- _8j50 4y agoI mean, they can still own multiple properties and sell it close to the original purchase price, I am just saying they can't make a profit from the sale of their second or third property.
- rib3ye 4y agoIncentivizing individual home ownership I get, but killing the home flipping market, I don’t. Personality, I don’t want to renovate an out of date home, I just want to move in and done with it. Taxing flippers to death doesn’t seem progressive to me.
- _8j50 4y agoThat's the first argument I usually get as well. I am very much saying end flipping. I don't know what is progressive about that at all. But to be practical, perhaps loosening the profit tax based on how long you owned it makes sense. Perhaps 1% for every year owned? That way you can flip it, live in it 20 years and sell it with inflation adjusted 20% profit?
- jefftk 4y agoThat's not what people usually mean by flipping, and doesn't address your parent's point. They want to be able to buy property in good condition, and flippers are providing a useful service of increasing the supply of housing good condition. (I would actually like us to deregulate housing construction past the point where flipping is no longer economic.)
- _8j50 4y agoSellers themselves would be incentivized to make their house in good condition to sell it at a profit. If all they do is renovate then that should be a service to the original seller. If your house is devalued by 20% when selling, you pay a renovator to fix it up and take 50% of profits so instead you only lose 10%. Like you said they provide a service, they could handle the sale as a real estate agent and get more pay as well. My suggestion just means the original owner will retain ownership until an actual person who wants to live in the house buys it.
- jefftk 4y agoIn your proposal the 'flipper' owns the house for 20 years, which is a completely different model and makes standard flipping uneconomical
- _8j50 4y agoThat wouldn't be flipping just a side-effect of ownership. Flippers should provide renovation/real-estate as a service with the original owner maintaining ownership until the sale to someone else.
- birdyrooster 4y agoNo one needs more than one house period.
- end_of_line 4y agoYeah, nobody should have vacation cabin. It's very bad for the sake of society. I will paraphrase wrongly attributed to Bill Gates quote. 15m should be enough for each worker in this world. Marx would be very happy hearing this.
- tasuki 4y agoWould you also like to limit the size of the houses?