4 ms·

> It's built for sale, not built for rental. Why is there such an emphasis on ownership? Yes I’ve owned five properties - two to live in permanently, one to li

> It's built for sale, not built for rental. Why is there such an emphasis on ownership? Yes I’ve owned five properties - two to live in permanently, one to live in half the year (the other half we travel), and two investment properties. The tenants I had in my rental properties were in no position to buy a home or for that matter to rent a whole house. I rented by the room. I actively discourage young people from buying homes. They need the flexibility to move to where the jobs are. Besides, are you really going to discourage building multi unit housing for rents? How is that going to help housing affordability?

philliphaydon 4y ago
You kinda prove my point, you rent out a room, you can afford a high mortgage repayment and combined income from your rentals covers mortgage payments. Preventing anyone from ever owning a home. Mortgage payments should be less than rental payments. Also not EVERYONE will be able to afford homes. But when the middle class are priced out of owning a home, as is the issue, thats a problem. Edit: you also seem to ignore that house prices have sky rocketed while income hasn’t. So thank you for contributing to the housing issue that causes young people to not be able to afford a home.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So, I prevented someone from owning a home that could only barely afford $80-$135/week with all utilities included? Isn’t that the ultimate “let them eat cake”? The alternative would be for the eight people to be homeless? Are all of the people buying property and focusing on student housing also keeping people from buying houses? Were the college students with no income who were only going to be in town for four years and living off of student loans also going to buy houses? Should they have also been forced to buy homes or be homeless? > So thank you for contributing to the housing issue that causes young people to not be able to afford a home I assure you those eight people (two houses) were happy to be able to afford to have a roof over their head. Do you suggest no one be allowed to be renters and everyone buy a home?
  - philliphaydon 4y ago
    Do you think if income grew at the same pace as house prices, those paying $80-135/week would be able to afford a house and mortgage on a smaller home?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Do you think everyone in your perfect world would be able to or should buy a home no matter what their circumstances? Including the recently divorced single guy who found odd jobs, the ex convict trying to get his life together, etc? The guy with the cheapest room was paying less than $4200 a year all utilities included. Did I do him a disservice? Are you saying that renters shouldn’t exists or do you think no one should be allowed to rent a single family house under no circumstances and you should either rent an apartment or buy a house?
      - philliphaydon 4y ago
        Providing a service doesn’t change that you’re contributing to a problem. You really sound like you don’t want people to own homes. You would rather houses be expensive so you can provide a service to more than to a few or to people who don’t want to own a home etc.
        scarface74 4y ago
        I sold my investment properties over a decade ago. But you didn’t answer the questions. Should everyone who wants to live in a house be forced to buy no matter what stage of life they are in? What shouid the people do who can’t afford to buy?
        medvezhenok 4y ago
        I don't think everyone should be forced to buy - I think that the tax code should be changed in order to not favor buying so heavily over renting. A few ideas to start 1) Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction 2) Tax imputed rent same way that rent payments are taxed (so you would have to pay tax on the money you would have paid to rent from yourself) 3) Get rid of capital gains exemption ($250K per person, 500K for married couples) or the more extreme version Land Value Tax. In Switzerland, 58% of the population are renters. Notably, the tax advantages of owning above are missing in Switzerland, making renting a more attractive proposition. That's what should be fixed. Don't push everyone to buy a home, but don't keep shoveling money in regressive transfers to those who do. (I didn't even mention prop 13 in California here which locks in your property tax - that is a complete abomination and should never have been passed. It's a regressive giveaway to homeowners)

philliphaydon 4y ago

You kinda prove my point, you rent out a room, you can afford a high mortgage repayment and combined income from your rentals covers mortgage payments. Preventing anyone from ever owning a home. Mortgage payments should be less than rental payments. Also not EVERYONE will be able to afford homes. But when the middle class are priced out of owning a home, as is the issue, thats a problem. Edit: you also seem to ignore that house prices have sky rocketed while income hasn’t. So thank you for contributing to the housing issue that causes young people to not be able to afford a home.

scarface74 4y ago
So, I prevented someone from owning a home that could only barely afford $80-$135/week with all utilities included? Isn’t that the ultimate “let them eat cake”? The alternative would be for the eight people to be homeless? Are all of the people buying property and focusing on student housing also keeping people from buying houses? Were the college students with no income who were only going to be in town for four years and living off of student loans also going to buy houses? Should they have also been forced to buy homes or be homeless? > So thank you for contributing to the housing issue that causes young people to not be able to afford a home I assure you those eight people (two houses) were happy to be able to afford to have a roof over their head. Do you suggest no one be allowed to be renters and everyone buy a home?
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  Do you think if income grew at the same pace as house prices, those paying $80-135/week would be able to afford a house and mortgage on a smaller home?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Do you think everyone in your perfect world would be able to or should buy a home no matter what their circumstances? Including the recently divorced single guy who found odd jobs, the ex convict trying to get his life together, etc? The guy with the cheapest room was paying less than $4200 a year all utilities included. Did I do him a disservice? Are you saying that renters shouldn’t exists or do you think no one should be allowed to rent a single family house under no circumstances and you should either rent an apartment or buy a house?
    - philliphaydon 4y ago
      Providing a service doesn’t change that you’re contributing to a problem. You really sound like you don’t want people to own homes. You would rather houses be expensive so you can provide a service to more than to a few or to people who don’t want to own a home etc.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        I sold my investment properties over a decade ago. But you didn’t answer the questions. Should everyone who wants to live in a house be forced to buy no matter what stage of life they are in? What shouid the people do who can’t afford to buy?
        medvezhenok 4y ago
        I don't think everyone should be forced to buy - I think that the tax code should be changed in order to not favor buying so heavily over renting. A few ideas to start 1) Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction 2) Tax imputed rent same way that rent payments are taxed (so you would have to pay tax on the money you would have paid to rent from yourself) 3) Get rid of capital gains exemption ($250K per person, 500K for married couples) or the more extreme version Land Value Tax. In Switzerland, 58% of the population are renters. Notably, the tax advantages of owning above are missing in Switzerland, making renting a more attractive proposition. That's what should be fixed. Don't push everyone to buy a home, but don't keep shoveling money in regressive transfers to those who do. (I didn't even mention prop 13 in California here which locks in your property tax - that is a complete abomination and should never have been passed. It's a regressive giveaway to homeowners)