3 ms·

Or option 3, where we tax the hell out of non owner occupied houses, to the point they aren't worth owning anymore. Despite what the news tells, we don't have

Or option 3, where we tax the hell out of non owner occupied houses, to the point they aren't worth owning anymore. Despite what the news tells, we don't have a shortage of housing. We have an abundance of rent seekers.

parineum 4y ago
> We have an abundance of rent seekers. We have an abundance of landlords. Landlords provide lots of value. I own a house and when I tell my friends about all the shit that I have to do to maintain my house, a common refrain is, "that's why we rent." A lot of people are intimidated by replaced a furnace that just broke and having their kitchen destroyed by a water leak.
- silisili 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - parineum 4y ago
    > But please don't even try to argue this in an intelligent community This is a great and intelligent community. Very respectful and articulate. That's something I really like about it, don't you?
  - hardware2win 4y ago
    What do you mean? My landlord definitely provides a lot of value to me
- Tanoc 4y ago
  You're not actually providing any value. You're just offsetting the cost and more than likely profiting by doing so. Renting versus owning when it comes to maintenance and repairs functions more like insurance, where you're paying more per month versus paying more upfront in a sort of bet against probability. That's assuming the landlord actually does maintenance or repairs instead of neglecting those issues. Regarding that bet against the cost of upkeep for the shortest term, months, renting's probably the most expensive option. Short term, two to five years, renting's cheapest or can be the cheapest (assuming you don't live in a trailer home or one of those sheds converted into a tiny house). Long term, more than five years, renting's once again the most expensive option. Renting for the renter only makes sense in a very specific context. Another factor is home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance is far more likely to cover high cost replacements than renter's insurance, and often is far more comprehensive in coverage. Renter's insurance might only cover up to $50,000 depending on your policy and exclude things like vehicles or special equipment like HAM radios. It also often doesn't cover certain natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes, which makes it harder for people in places like Memphis Tennessee to recover after those events. Providing value, in a broader sense, would be paying a specialist to come in and fix the furnace. Something a modern homeowner would likely do anyways due to either the mechanical complexity, time involved, or level of skill required. That's money going to a dedicated job that's likely from a local business since HVAC and plumbing tend to be trades. The homeowner's upfront expense is more, but ignoring things like regional wealth extraction the local economy is strengthened because of it.
  - parineum 4y ago
    >You're not actually providing any value. That's because I'm not a landlord. Finding reliable professionals is difficult. They're also expensive. Homeowners insurance is great. I've used it on a few occasions. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover expensive things that break at full cost. So if something breaks and it was older, you're on the hook. You don't have to convince me renting is a bad financial move, that's why I don't rent, but you can't pretend like there is no benefit to renting. After the things I've already mentioned, renting gives you much more freedom to move. That's a big deal if you're looking for work, for example. Some people like to move around and experience different places before settling down. Renting provides value to those people. Renting is definitely more expensive. You're paying for more. Free maintenance, no concern for depreciation, mobility and whatever other other things I don't consider. Home ownership has been stressful. I think it's a better move, that's why I do it but I also know people who prefer not to.
alwayslikethis 4y ago
We can also have option 4, which is to nullify zoning codes, some fire codes, deeds restrictions, among other things that stop houses from being built. We also need to reduce HOA power at least temporarily, to allow various forms of expansion on the lots in single family homes (there is plenty of land to build a smaller house in most of those). Then we let the market take care of it, perhaps assisted by some small-scale government programs. House prices and rents will fall, which can hopefully put some private equity landholders with leveraged positions under water, forcing them to liquidate the houses. It is inevitable that some individual owners might be hit with this too, but a one time bailout can be offered. This can then trigger a large surplus in housing such that it starts to become more or less affordable again over a few years.
64bittechie 4y ago
[dead]
kube-system 4y ago
We can’t put rentals completely out of business. Buying doesn’t make sense for every person who needs housing.
- silisili 4y ago
  Apartments and townhouses cover these use cases fine. Most other arguments are made by rent seekers acting like they are doing people a favor. Single family homes should be required to be owner occupied, end of story. People in the US and abroad are instead treating them like Pokemon cards.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    They do only if you presume that the only reason someone would need to rent is because they’re young childless professionals. There are many different life situations that might necessitate a single family home rental. Apartments are not large, townhouses don’t exist in some places, etc. Although I do agree we would be better off with fewer single family rentals, that number is definitely not zero.
  - roel_v 4y ago
    "rent seekers" You've used this term several times in this thread, but it does not mean what you seem to think it means.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Be helpful and link to the wiki or paste in the definition.
    - silisili 4y ago
      I know exactly what it means, and only 'good landlords' think it doesn't fit.
      - golergka 4y ago
        It means ordinary Americans contributing to their 401k and other pensions plans, mostly.

parineum 4y ago

> We have an abundance of rent seekers. We have an abundance of landlords. Landlords provide lots of value. I own a house and when I tell my friends about all the shit that I have to do to maintain my house, a common refrain is, "that's why we rent." A lot of people are intimidated by replaced a furnace that just broke and having their kitchen destroyed by a water leak.

silisili 4y ago
[flagged]
- parineum 4y ago
  > But please don't even try to argue this in an intelligent community This is a great and intelligent community. Very respectful and articulate. That's something I really like about it, don't you?
- hardware2win 4y ago
  What do you mean? My landlord definitely provides a lot of value to me
Tanoc 4y ago
You're not actually providing any value. You're just offsetting the cost and more than likely profiting by doing so. Renting versus owning when it comes to maintenance and repairs functions more like insurance, where you're paying more per month versus paying more upfront in a sort of bet against probability. That's assuming the landlord actually does maintenance or repairs instead of neglecting those issues. Regarding that bet against the cost of upkeep for the shortest term, months, renting's probably the most expensive option. Short term, two to five years, renting's cheapest or can be the cheapest (assuming you don't live in a trailer home or one of those sheds converted into a tiny house). Long term, more than five years, renting's once again the most expensive option. Renting for the renter only makes sense in a very specific context. Another factor is home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance is far more likely to cover high cost replacements than renter's insurance, and often is far more comprehensive in coverage. Renter's insurance might only cover up to $50,000 depending on your policy and exclude things like vehicles or special equipment like HAM radios. It also often doesn't cover certain natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes, which makes it harder for people in places like Memphis Tennessee to recover after those events. Providing value, in a broader sense, would be paying a specialist to come in and fix the furnace. Something a modern homeowner would likely do anyways due to either the mechanical complexity, time involved, or level of skill required. That's money going to a dedicated job that's likely from a local business since HVAC and plumbing tend to be trades. The homeowner's upfront expense is more, but ignoring things like regional wealth extraction the local economy is strengthened because of it.
- parineum 4y ago
  >You're not actually providing any value. That's because I'm not a landlord. Finding reliable professionals is difficult. They're also expensive. Homeowners insurance is great. I've used it on a few occasions. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover expensive things that break at full cost. So if something breaks and it was older, you're on the hook. You don't have to convince me renting is a bad financial move, that's why I don't rent, but you can't pretend like there is no benefit to renting. After the things I've already mentioned, renting gives you much more freedom to move. That's a big deal if you're looking for work, for example. Some people like to move around and experience different places before settling down. Renting provides value to those people. Renting is definitely more expensive. You're paying for more. Free maintenance, no concern for depreciation, mobility and whatever other other things I don't consider. Home ownership has been stressful. I think it's a better move, that's why I do it but I also know people who prefer not to.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

We can also have option 4, which is to nullify zoning codes, some fire codes, deeds restrictions, among other things that stop houses from being built. We also need to reduce HOA power at least temporarily, to allow various forms of expansion on the lots in single family homes (there is plenty of land to build a smaller house in most of those). Then we let the market take care of it, perhaps assisted by some small-scale government programs. House prices and rents will fall, which can hopefully put some private equity landholders with leveraged positions under water, forcing them to liquidate the houses. It is inevitable that some individual owners might be hit with this too, but a one time bailout can be offered. This can then trigger a large surplus in housing such that it starts to become more or less affordable again over a few years.

64bittechie 4y ago

[dead]

kube-system 4y ago

We can’t put rentals completely out of business. Buying doesn’t make sense for every person who needs housing.

silisili 4y ago
Apartments and townhouses cover these use cases fine. Most other arguments are made by rent seekers acting like they are doing people a favor. Single family homes should be required to be owner occupied, end of story. People in the US and abroad are instead treating them like Pokemon cards.
- kube-system 4y ago
  They do only if you presume that the only reason someone would need to rent is because they’re young childless professionals. There are many different life situations that might necessitate a single family home rental. Apartments are not large, townhouses don’t exist in some places, etc. Although I do agree we would be better off with fewer single family rentals, that number is definitely not zero.
- roel_v 4y ago
  "rent seekers" You've used this term several times in this thread, but it does not mean what you seem to think it means.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Be helpful and link to the wiki or paste in the definition.
  - silisili 4y ago
    I know exactly what it means, and only 'good landlords' think it doesn't fit.
    - golergka 4y ago
      It means ordinary Americans contributing to their 401k and other pensions plans, mostly.