4 ms·
it makes sense though as this is how the middle class sees a lot of their wealth passed through death and marriage, its houses for the middle class. its just th
by birdyrooster 3y ago
it makes sense though as this is how the middle class sees a lot of their wealth passed through death and marriage, its houses for the middle class. its just that the middle class is shrinking and so now the same houses are owned by fewer families. for everyone else there is renting and homelessness.
- caddemon 3y agoIn SF/Bay Area there is definitely a separate issue besides just the shrinking middle class. SWEs that by all other metrics would be solidly middle class if not upper middle are having a hard time finding affordable homes there. The only people I know who've entertained ownership in the area are DINK, and I know many people in their late 20s and early 30s who have been consistently earning over 6 figures since the day they left college. That said, I can understand arguments for protecting existing middle class homeowners. I think a huge chunk of the problem could be resolved by having policies that treat property like any other speculative investment while having some sort of exceptions for primary family homes that are actively being lived in by the owners. I'm guessing if that were the only class protected by the SF property tax laws only a small minority of the current places would remain with locked-in rates.
- seiferteric 3y agoI think you could ban investment properties entirely and we would still have the same problems, it would barely be a blip I bet. There just isn't enough housing and there isn't likely to be anytime soon.
- birdyrooster 3y agohttps://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/amid-inflation-more-middle-class-americans-struggle-to-make-ends-meet.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/amid-inflation-more-middle-c...