4 ms·

In terms of regulations, I'd propose we bring back bigger down payment requirements (20%) and end the infinite availability of artificially low-interest debt.

by KPLS 4y ago

In terms of regulations, I'd propose we bring back bigger down payment requirements (20%) and end the infinite availability of artificially low-interest debt. The absurdly cheap debt has driven speculation by bigger entities on housing, driving up the prices, and eased lending standards have just attempted to give individuals and families a fighting chance at competing for homes, also driving up the prices. I'm not sure how financing of homes in London compares to the US, but the effect of near zero interest rates (which is behind us at the moment but I wouldn't hold your breath) have been global. I don't know how you encourage mom and pop landlords while cutting out a lot of the wild speculative money looking for a home in real estate, but it seems pretty important to figure out.

alvah 4y ago
There are ways to fix it, but none of them are politically palatable - for a couple of generations now, homeowners have come to believe their house is an investment. If you propose any action that will reduce the value of their "investment", you will be voted out at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, I can't see a way this gets fixed under the current political systems in the West, so it will eventually be fixed one of the more old-fashioned ways.
mjevans 4y ago
Tax the undesired behavior. Using housing as an _investment_ should be heavily taxed based on the behavior's negative impact to society. Live somewhere for at least 35% of a year (more than 1/3rd), then most of that tax goes away since it's a 'primary residence'. (35% to allow for moving as well as possible 'sunbird' / 'winter/summer homes', while still catching anyone who treats housing as an 'investment' (a tax upon the poor))
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- b112 4y ago
  So landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy, now raise rents dramatically? So the end result, the poor pay more? Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.
  - tremon 4y ago
    landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy Why is that framing preferred over "landlords, who reduce housing supply by keeping properties off the market"?
    - ericd 4y ago
      They don't reduce housing supply. The same number of people are living in that building as would be if the building had been sold to them. If you want to get to the root of the problem, look at the development process. Start with your local zoning laws. It is insane how tightly prescriptive they are, usually, and they generally have lots of density-limiting provisions like mandatory parking, maximum floor to area ratios, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, etc. And then there's the planning/approval process.
      - rkangel 4y ago
        > They don't reduce housing supply They don't reduce housing supply for living, but they do reduce housing supply for owning. Normal people being able to own the house that they live in seems like a reasonable societal goal to me, but the current economic climate is making that harder and harder as houses move into the hands of landlords (private and commercial).
  - lozenge 4y ago
    Landlords don't provide housing, buildings do. If they are taxed out of owning the building, they'll sell it to somebody who can live in it. Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Hotels, apartments, etc; things designed for such rentals should be in an entirely different category than (intended as single owner / dwelling) housing.
    - 4y ago

by KPLS 4y ago

alvah 4y ago

There are ways to fix it, but none of them are politically palatable - for a couple of generations now, homeowners have come to believe their house is an investment. If you propose any action that will reduce the value of their "investment", you will be voted out at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, I can't see a way this gets fixed under the current political systems in the West, so it will eventually be fixed one of the more old-fashioned ways.

mjevans 4y ago

Tax the undesired behavior. Using housing as an _investment_ should be heavily taxed based on the behavior's negative impact to society. Live somewhere for at least 35% of a year (more than 1/3rd), then most of that tax goes away since it's a 'primary residence'. (35% to allow for moving as well as possible 'sunbird' / 'winter/summer homes', while still catching anyone who treats housing as an 'investment' (a tax upon the poor))

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
b112 4y ago
So landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy, now raise rents dramatically? So the end result, the poor pay more? Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.
- tremon 4y ago
  landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy Why is that framing preferred over "landlords, who reduce housing supply by keeping properties off the market"?
  - ericd 4y ago
    They don't reduce housing supply. The same number of people are living in that building as would be if the building had been sold to them. If you want to get to the root of the problem, look at the development process. Start with your local zoning laws. It is insane how tightly prescriptive they are, usually, and they generally have lots of density-limiting provisions like mandatory parking, maximum floor to area ratios, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, etc. And then there's the planning/approval process.
    - rkangel 4y ago
      > They don't reduce housing supply They don't reduce housing supply for living, but they do reduce housing supply for owning. Normal people being able to own the house that they live in seems like a reasonable societal goal to me, but the current economic climate is making that harder and harder as houses move into the hands of landlords (private and commercial).
- lozenge 4y ago
  Landlords don't provide housing, buildings do. If they are taxed out of owning the building, they'll sell it to somebody who can live in it. Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Hotels, apartments, etc; things designed for such rentals should be in an entirely different category than (intended as single owner / dwelling) housing.
  - 4y ago