6 ms·

But isn’t this only true if you want to profit from the property? What about you buy the property for you and your family to live in rather than as an investme

by Renaud 4y ago

But isn’t this only true if you want to profit from the property? What about you buy the property for you and your family to live in rather than as an investment that needs high return? The property value will still increase with time. That should offer some form of protection for the initial capital investment if you need to sell later in life.

Gigachad 4y ago
Likely the people renting these apartments couldn’t afford to buy at almost any price. A much more logical system would be for the government to raise minimum wage and welfare to the point that people can afford rentals at the market rate rather than rent control which is a head in sand solution.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  That’s a guaranteed way to increase rental prices.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Once the rent increases enough, new construction becomes more and more worth while. Artificially depressed rents lead to a slowdown in construction while allowing them to rise uncontrolled keeps construction flowing at a desirable which itself controls rents because its increasing the supply.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      Sure, artificially decreasing supply with pricing controls is a bad idea, but artificially increasing demand with subsidies isn’t the solution to that problem.
- vouwfietsman 4y ago
  If done in the short term (years), wouldn't this just cause inflation and landlords will happily follow that inflation with higher rents... As long as a good is scarce and controlled by the market there is no reason for the situation to improve for people who want that good. Thats why housing should never be part of a market, because people don't want houses, people need houses.
  - parineum 4y ago
    People don't need houses. Lots of people don't have houses and do just fine.
    - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
      Sorry? Homeless people? I am taking the OPs use of "house" as "place to live" not "detached residential building with single family occupancy"? Are you ?
      - parineum 4y ago
        Lots of people live in vans by choice, I've considered it. A PO Box, a cell phone and a van is pretty cheap. Furthermore, in context of the topic at hand, we're talking about housing _in NYC_, which people certainly don't need. I certainly don't. I don't even want it.
        lifeisstillgood 4y ago
        You need land to park your van on. Land is pricey. Land in or near "a city where all the jobs are" is even pricier. A house (residential building) on land near amenities is going to be expensive. All a van does is reduce the cost of building on top of that land - and not by a great deal. I mean the UK has large numbers of "trailer parks" in the South East and those suckers go for 100K plus. More than half the cost of average house price in the UK. A van does not solve the problem. A van is a shitty place to raise a family. And remote working is not going to cut it - if your job does not pay you enough to afford a house, it's unlikely to be a nice middle class job where you can sit at a laptop.
        parineum 4y ago
        Walmart parking lots are free. So is the side of the road in most places. The purpose of the van is not owning property (hence the PO box). Did we just add "being able to raise a family" to the "need" column too? Kids are more expensive than housing.
- EricDeb 4y ago
  How about a vacancy tax? Then sellers are forced to sell driving prices down so more people who actually want to live there (not rent it out) can afford to buy?
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Better idea. Progressive property tax. You don't have to track vacancy, just ownership.
refurb 4y ago
If they are multi-tenancy buildings, then you need to buy the entire building, do a TOC or make a co-op. They aren’t individually purchasable units.
djbebs 4y ago
Buying it for you and your family to live in *is* an investment. The only thing you're doing when prioritizing that type of investment over others is you're picking winners and losers for political reasons... at great cost to everyone else.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Buying a house to live in it is fulfilling a crucial basic need. It's extremely different from an investment in many ways. If the value of a house goes up spending a day in it does not feel any different. If someone offers you a lot of money for it you can sell it but you still have to buy or rent another one. Very very few people want to have a lot of cash but live under a bridge.
  - worik 4y ago
    > Buying a house to live in it is fulfilling a crucial basic need. Absolutely. > It's extremely different from an investment in many ways That is not so true, and is part of the problem, in two ways. (1) People are buying properties to live in at one stage in their lives, when they have high incomes, or prospect of high incomes, thinking they will sell when they are older and make a large profit they will use to fund their retirement. This drives up prices and drives out people with lower incomes. (2) The above is part of the cause of the housing bubble. Also driven by increasing populations. As that bubble goes the way of all bubbles, especially as population decline sets in, those people get to retirement with an asset that is not worth anything like what they expected. This will cause a lot of impoverishment (some actual poverty too) amongst a lot of those older people Yes. We all need somewhere to live. Also most of us (those who have incomes) need a place to save. It is a problem that the two things are confused now.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      > We all need somewhere to live. Also most of us (those who have incomes) need a place to save. The first is a crucial need, the second is a want. > It is a problem that the two things are confused now. Yes, that's what I meant. And when they mix together the investment market takes over because it drive prices above the house-as-necessity market. Which translates into: houses are taken away from people who need shelter and give to people with money to invest.
cm2187 4y ago
What other purpose than investment would a rental apartment have to the owner?
zajio1am 4y ago
> But isn’t this only true if you want to profit from the property? You have implicit profit living in your property through imputed rent.

by Renaud 4y ago

Gigachad 4y ago

Likely the people renting these apartments couldn’t afford to buy at almost any price. A much more logical system would be for the government to raise minimum wage and welfare to the point that people can afford rentals at the market rate rather than rent control which is a head in sand solution.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
That’s a guaranteed way to increase rental prices.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Once the rent increases enough, new construction becomes more and more worth while. Artificially depressed rents lead to a slowdown in construction while allowing them to rise uncontrolled keeps construction flowing at a desirable which itself controls rents because its increasing the supply.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    Sure, artificially decreasing supply with pricing controls is a bad idea, but artificially increasing demand with subsidies isn’t the solution to that problem.
vouwfietsman 4y ago
If done in the short term (years), wouldn't this just cause inflation and landlords will happily follow that inflation with higher rents... As long as a good is scarce and controlled by the market there is no reason for the situation to improve for people who want that good. Thats why housing should never be part of a market, because people don't want houses, people need houses.
- parineum 4y ago
  People don't need houses. Lots of people don't have houses and do just fine.
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    Sorry? Homeless people? I am taking the OPs use of "house" as "place to live" not "detached residential building with single family occupancy"? Are you ?
    - parineum 4y ago
      Lots of people live in vans by choice, I've considered it. A PO Box, a cell phone and a van is pretty cheap. Furthermore, in context of the topic at hand, we're talking about housing _in NYC_, which people certainly don't need. I certainly don't. I don't even want it.
      - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
        You need land to park your van on. Land is pricey. Land in or near "a city where all the jobs are" is even pricier. A house (residential building) on land near amenities is going to be expensive. All a van does is reduce the cost of building on top of that land - and not by a great deal. I mean the UK has large numbers of "trailer parks" in the South East and those suckers go for 100K plus. More than half the cost of average house price in the UK. A van does not solve the problem. A van is a shitty place to raise a family. And remote working is not going to cut it - if your job does not pay you enough to afford a house, it's unlikely to be a nice middle class job where you can sit at a laptop.
        parineum 4y ago
        Walmart parking lots are free. So is the side of the road in most places. The purpose of the van is not owning property (hence the PO box). Did we just add "being able to raise a family" to the "need" column too? Kids are more expensive than housing.
EricDeb 4y ago
How about a vacancy tax? Then sellers are forced to sell driving prices down so more people who actually want to live there (not rent it out) can afford to buy?
- scotty79 4y ago
  Better idea. Progressive property tax. You don't have to track vacancy, just ownership.

refurb 4y ago

If they are multi-tenancy buildings, then you need to buy the entire building, do a TOC or make a co-op. They aren’t individually purchasable units.

djbebs 4y ago

Buying it for you and your family to live in *is* an investment. The only thing you're doing when prioritizing that type of investment over others is you're picking winners and losers for political reasons... at great cost to everyone else.

goodpoint 4y ago
Buying a house to live in it is fulfilling a crucial basic need. It's extremely different from an investment in many ways. If the value of a house goes up spending a day in it does not feel any different. If someone offers you a lot of money for it you can sell it but you still have to buy or rent another one. Very very few people want to have a lot of cash but live under a bridge.
- worik 4y ago
  > Buying a house to live in it is fulfilling a crucial basic need. Absolutely. > It's extremely different from an investment in many ways That is not so true, and is part of the problem, in two ways. (1) People are buying properties to live in at one stage in their lives, when they have high incomes, or prospect of high incomes, thinking they will sell when they are older and make a large profit they will use to fund their retirement. This drives up prices and drives out people with lower incomes. (2) The above is part of the cause of the housing bubble. Also driven by increasing populations. As that bubble goes the way of all bubbles, especially as population decline sets in, those people get to retirement with an asset that is not worth anything like what they expected. This will cause a lot of impoverishment (some actual poverty too) amongst a lot of those older people Yes. We all need somewhere to live. Also most of us (those who have incomes) need a place to save. It is a problem that the two things are confused now.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > We all need somewhere to live. Also most of us (those who have incomes) need a place to save. The first is a crucial need, the second is a want. > It is a problem that the two things are confused now. Yes, that's what I meant. And when they mix together the investment market takes over because it drive prices above the house-as-necessity market. Which translates into: houses are taken away from people who need shelter and give to people with money to invest.

cm2187 4y ago

What other purpose than investment would a rental apartment have to the owner?

zajio1am 4y ago

> But isn’t this only true if you want to profit from the property? You have implicit profit living in your property through imputed rent.