4 ms·

There goes another way to make wealth. Yes I know that was high but there are not many way to make wealth anymore, only living.

prepend 3y ago
It makes more wealth for the homeowner so it’s actually a net gain as there were realtor expenses. More wealth is gained by society by giving homeowner an extra $20k in price than giving a realtor $20k for limited value.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  Especially when the $20k to the realtor isn't the full story. A usual realtor's pay would be: $20,000 commission: - 30% ($6,000) split with brokerage (Keller Williams/Remax/Etc) - 25% ($5,000) to set aside for taxes - $799 for MLS fees (estimated at .12%) - 20% ($4,000) for team splits Leaving $4,201 for the agent, for what may be their only transaction for a month. The reason NAR/brokers were so hellbent on not changing how the fees were handled is because this is going to hit them the hardest, a majority of these fees go to the broker/NAR.
  - user90131313 3y ago
    I didnt know this and I assumed different. it's differeren in outside of USA. So my comment is not correct
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      Just think of it as a much more complicated, legally allowed pyramid scheme here in the US.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Why is 25% set aside for taxes if the realtor is only getting 20%. This seems odd. Wouldn’t they only be taxed on income net of all expenses?
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      It's true that they would (really) only be paying taxes on the amount they earn, but that's still only calculated after the 30% (or whatever it is) split with the brokerage. The team split, MLS fees, photography, etc are part of the net income. So maintaining a steady 25% of the total commission allows for some wiggle room just in case.
      - prepend 3y ago
        That’s going to be way too much held over. If I have $4k in income then taxes will be 20-50% of that. The realtor does not pay the taxes of the brokerage. And all fees are not part of net income and not taxable. They are part of gross income and will not be taxed.
- ilovetux 3y ago
  I'm skeptical of the impact this will have on homeowners, if you define homeowners as someone who owns the house in which they live. This comes at a time when residential property is increasingly being bought up by commercial interests, and it is interesting to note that, as per the linked article, this case was brought by a group of home sellers and not people looking to buy. While this change may benefit some people looking to buy their homes, I believe that most benefits will be reaped by commercial interests looking to rent the houses for profit.
  - prepend 3y ago
    It literally reduces the price paid to commission. That will to either the seller as a saved cost or to the buyer as a reduced price. How could it not increase their wealth?
oivey 3y ago
It has become a parasitic way to make money. Technology has made it very little work with limited utility for consumers. Realtors gained wealth at the expense of consumers.
- karmakaze 3y ago
  Ironically, technology also makes gatekeepers the rent-seekers that collect without value add. So it's not about tech it's about gatekeeping, though tech forces changing of hands.

prepend 3y ago

It makes more wealth for the homeowner so it’s actually a net gain as there were realtor expenses. More wealth is gained by society by giving homeowner an extra $20k in price than giving a realtor $20k for limited value.

notaustinpowers 3y ago
Especially when the $20k to the realtor isn't the full story. A usual realtor's pay would be: $20,000 commission: - 30% ($6,000) split with brokerage (Keller Williams/Remax/Etc) - 25% ($5,000) to set aside for taxes - $799 for MLS fees (estimated at .12%) - 20% ($4,000) for team splits Leaving $4,201 for the agent, for what may be their only transaction for a month. The reason NAR/brokers were so hellbent on not changing how the fees were handled is because this is going to hit them the hardest, a majority of these fees go to the broker/NAR.
- user90131313 3y ago
  I didnt know this and I assumed different. it's differeren in outside of USA. So my comment is not correct
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    Just think of it as a much more complicated, legally allowed pyramid scheme here in the US.
- prepend 3y ago
  Why is 25% set aside for taxes if the realtor is only getting 20%. This seems odd. Wouldn’t they only be taxed on income net of all expenses?
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    It's true that they would (really) only be paying taxes on the amount they earn, but that's still only calculated after the 30% (or whatever it is) split with the brokerage. The team split, MLS fees, photography, etc are part of the net income. So maintaining a steady 25% of the total commission allows for some wiggle room just in case.
    - prepend 3y ago
      That’s going to be way too much held over. If I have $4k in income then taxes will be 20-50% of that. The realtor does not pay the taxes of the brokerage. And all fees are not part of net income and not taxable. They are part of gross income and will not be taxed.
ilovetux 3y ago
I'm skeptical of the impact this will have on homeowners, if you define homeowners as someone who owns the house in which they live. This comes at a time when residential property is increasingly being bought up by commercial interests, and it is interesting to note that, as per the linked article, this case was brought by a group of home sellers and not people looking to buy. While this change may benefit some people looking to buy their homes, I believe that most benefits will be reaped by commercial interests looking to rent the houses for profit.
- prepend 3y ago
  It literally reduces the price paid to commission. That will to either the seller as a saved cost or to the buyer as a reduced price. How could it not increase their wealth?

oivey 3y ago

It has become a parasitic way to make money. Technology has made it very little work with limited utility for consumers. Realtors gained wealth at the expense of consumers.

karmakaze 3y ago
Ironically, technology also makes gatekeepers the rent-seekers that collect without value add. So it's not about tech it's about gatekeeping, though tech forces changing of hands.