3 ms·

I'm sure there are better tax strategies than taxing capital gains on the house. That harms home owners and savers too. Most people's biggest source of saving

I'm sure there are better tax strategies than taxing capital gains on the house. That harms home owners and savers too. Most people's biggest source of savings is their house. Instead figure out some way of differentiating between a house as primary residence and a house as investment, and tax former less and the latter more.

trashtester 4y ago
> That harms home owners and savers too. Most people's biggest source of savings is their house. This, and the expectation of this, is the main problem. It causes a lot of economic misallocation. Also the long term risk is massive. Buy a property in SF today, and it may be the best investment you ever made. But if SF goes the way of Detroit, it could be the worst one, especially given the leverage often used in such "investments". And since people see the property as their main economic security, it strongly reinforces any NIMBY tendencies, creating incentives to make it harder for non-owners to find a place to live. Imo, housing should be seen as depreciating asset, just like a car. People should build houses to live in them, not as security for their retirement, and it should be allowed to be cheaper when possible (remove regulations that jack the price up, whether it's zoning or excessive requirements to the standard, as well as limit how much local communities can prevent land owners to build on their own land). Whether people want to own or lend/lease should be up to them, just as with cars. And if housing gets cheaper, any funds freed up should be invested elsewhere. For long term investments, I think index funds or conservatively managed (and low fee) managed funds are ideal. They allow people to grow capital at approx the same rate as the economy grows, and protects against local fluctuations, and they also provide some protection against inflation risk.

trashtester 4y ago

> That harms home owners and savers too. Most people's biggest source of savings is their house. This, and the expectation of this, is the main problem. It causes a lot of economic misallocation. Also the long term risk is massive. Buy a property in SF today, and it may be the best investment you ever made. But if SF goes the way of Detroit, it could be the worst one, especially given the leverage often used in such "investments". And since people see the property as their main economic security, it strongly reinforces any NIMBY tendencies, creating incentives to make it harder for non-owners to find a place to live. Imo, housing should be seen as depreciating asset, just like a car. People should build houses to live in them, not as security for their retirement, and it should be allowed to be cheaper when possible (remove regulations that jack the price up, whether it's zoning or excessive requirements to the standard, as well as limit how much local communities can prevent land owners to build on their own land). Whether people want to own or lend/lease should be up to them, just as with cars. And if housing gets cheaper, any funds freed up should be invested elsewhere. For long term investments, I think index funds or conservatively managed (and low fee) managed funds are ideal. They allow people to grow capital at approx the same rate as the economy grows, and protects against local fluctuations, and they also provide some protection against inflation risk.