4 ms·

This comment does take quite a number of steps to reach a conclusions. Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental mar

This comment does take quite a number of steps to reach a conclusions. Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental market. You can still own housing and rent it out and take a rent that covers your cost (including the work you need to do in order to rent it out). This is already well established. Public housing also does not run on prayers and good intentions - and yet they manage to pay salary to contractors and run the administrative burden. The only cost there is associated with public housing is the opportunity cost which is indeed something the parent commenter argues should never be a concern in areas regarding core human needs - like shelter.

SgtBastard 2y ago
So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door? If a landlord wins the lottery, are they forced to lower the rent if they pay down their mortgage? Public housing runs because the people administrating it have no disincentives to making poor decisions because ultimately it’s the tax payer who pays. All this guarantees is a two-tier system. Owners and basic rental properties available.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  > So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door? Idk, what do you think is fair? In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. If you take out a mortgage that you can not service a mortgage with this rent-level, then you are at fault. On the contrary, if you don't have a mortgage, then you can pay yourself a higher salary for maintaining your rental unit. However, if you "win the lottery" and get a house for free, don't you have the moral obligation to not maximize your rental income? You really don't need all this money (this discussion, btw, also goes into the nature of inheritance tax, where one could argue that a fair society should tax you in a way that forces you to take out a mortgage on the house you inherit - after all, you did not work for it) The core of this is to what extend housing should be a part of a free market. IMHO, there is plenty of opportunity right now - just move a out of the big cities and you get housing thrown at you. I do see an insistence on wanting to live in a few select cities followed by complaints that it is expensive.
  - SgtBastard 2y ago
    > In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock. >Don’t you have a moral obligation No.
  - SgtBastard 2y ago
    > In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock. >Don’t you have a moral obligation No.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tossandthrow 2y ago
      > Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock. Sure, you get what you pay for. > No. That is fair. You definitely represent the profit obsessed sentiments that put money ahead of people. I hope you go bankrupt in a crash of a bubble with nothing but your own greed to thank.
toast0 2y ago
> Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental market. You can still own housing and rent it out and take a rent that covers your cost (including the work you need to do in order to rent it out). Why would anyone put in the time and capital to own and maintain housing, if they knew they were limited to charging only their costs? What's in it for the owners? Who would build or finance a dense, multiunit housing if it was impossible to profit? > Public housing also does not run on prayers and good intentions - and yet they manage to pay salary to contractors and run the administrative burden. My understanding is that public housing gets budget from government and not solely from rents. I don't see how that establishes that at cost rental is viable, unless you're suggesting that all rentals be public housing?
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  > Why would anyone put in the time and capital to own and maintain housing, if they knew they were limited to charging only their costs? What's in it for the owners? Who would build or finance a dense, multiunit housing if it was impossible to profit? The intention is indeed to make it less favorable to rent out housing. That should not come as a shock. If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. And it is not a foreign idea. The Anglo world (Australia and the US in particular) are really good at making legislation that makes it favorable for foreign entities to by up REITs and earn some buck of the fact that Australians and Americans can hardly pay their rent. But try looking at the Austrian housing market and compare it. > My understanding is that public housing gets budget from government and not solely from rents. I think the governments pay for land - which again is highly inflated because of the current legislation. This is what I talked about re. opportunity cost.
  - toast0 2y ago
    > If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. I get that that sounds nice, but won't it also make it much harder to move? Rental housing is valuable for owners because there's potential profit, but it's valuable for renters because there's flexibility. If you've got to sell your house and buy another everytime you move, that makes it harder to move to get a better job. If you've got to wait for a public housing opening, that makes it nearly impossible. If peole can't move for a better job, employers have a narrower scope of competition, which adds to downward pressure on wages and benefits.
parineum 2y ago
> Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental market. It certainly will. Why would anyone sit in a rental property that makes no money rather than just put it in a savings account? Even with how bad the return on investment is for savings accounts, it's miles better than 0. Sure a private entity can still rent technically but they wouldn't. Let's not consider what's legal, let's consider what people would actually do. That leaves one entity who will be willing to rent, the government. Nevermind the incredibly poor reputation that government housing has, how will they set prices? What effect will that have on private home ownership in general? What effect will that have on personal my mobility? I would have great concerns that you'd be stuck where you were born doing the same job your parents did because nobody would ever leave their guaranteed housing in high opportunity areas. And what of commercial real estate? And then we circle back to public housing. A thing that already exists and nobody wants to be in. Once the rental market is destroyed and the housing market follows because individual house sellers can't compete with the government funded and subsidized rental market, nearly everyone will live in public housing where a faceless beaurocrat is responsible for the maintenance of thousands of properties that they really don't care about. Low income neighborhoods will have underfunded repair services with ling wait times and shoddy workmanship while the nice neighborhoods will enjoy prompt service by qualified technicians. I get that the current situation isn't great but it'd be nice to come up with a better solution than destroying the whole housing market in favor of what would inevitably lead to Soviet style housing projects[1]. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchevka https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchevka

SgtBastard 2y ago

So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door? If a landlord wins the lottery, are they forced to lower the rent if they pay down their mortgage? Public housing runs because the people administrating it have no disincentives to making poor decisions because ultimately it’s the tax payer who pays. All this guarantees is a two-tier system. Owners and basic rental properties available.

tossandthrow 2y ago
> So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door? Idk, what do you think is fair? In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. If you take out a mortgage that you can not service a mortgage with this rent-level, then you are at fault. On the contrary, if you don't have a mortgage, then you can pay yourself a higher salary for maintaining your rental unit. However, if you "win the lottery" and get a house for free, don't you have the moral obligation to not maximize your rental income? You really don't need all this money (this discussion, btw, also goes into the nature of inheritance tax, where one could argue that a fair society should tax you in a way that forces you to take out a mortgage on the house you inherit - after all, you did not work for it) The core of this is to what extend housing should be a part of a free market. IMHO, there is plenty of opportunity right now - just move a out of the big cities and you get housing thrown at you. I do see an insistence on wanting to live in a few select cities followed by complaints that it is expensive.
- SgtBastard 2y ago
  > In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock. >Don’t you have a moral obligation No.
- SgtBastard 2y ago
  > In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock. >Don’t you have a moral obligation No.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    > Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock. Sure, you get what you pay for. > No. That is fair. You definitely represent the profit obsessed sentiments that put money ahead of people. I hope you go bankrupt in a crash of a bubble with nothing but your own greed to thank.

toast0 2y ago

> Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental market. You can still own housing and rent it out and take a rent that covers your cost (including the work you need to do in order to rent it out). Why would anyone put in the time and capital to own and maintain housing, if they knew they were limited to charging only their costs? What's in it for the owners? Who would build or finance a dense, multiunit housing if it was impossible to profit? > Public housing also does not run on prayers and good intentions - and yet they manage to pay salary to contractors and run the administrative burden. My understanding is that public housing gets budget from government and not solely from rents. I don't see how that establishes that at cost rental is viable, unless you're suggesting that all rentals be public housing?

tossandthrow 2y ago
> Why would anyone put in the time and capital to own and maintain housing, if they knew they were limited to charging only their costs? What's in it for the owners? Who would build or finance a dense, multiunit housing if it was impossible to profit? The intention is indeed to make it less favorable to rent out housing. That should not come as a shock. If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. And it is not a foreign idea. The Anglo world (Australia and the US in particular) are really good at making legislation that makes it favorable for foreign entities to by up REITs and earn some buck of the fact that Australians and Americans can hardly pay their rent. But try looking at the Austrian housing market and compare it. > My understanding is that public housing gets budget from government and not solely from rents. I think the governments pay for land - which again is highly inflated because of the current legislation. This is what I talked about re. opportunity cost.
- toast0 2y ago
  > If such legislation was put in effect, we would likely see more people owning their own units and lower housing prices. I get that that sounds nice, but won't it also make it much harder to move? Rental housing is valuable for owners because there's potential profit, but it's valuable for renters because there's flexibility. If you've got to sell your house and buy another everytime you move, that makes it harder to move to get a better job. If you've got to wait for a public housing opening, that makes it nearly impossible. If peole can't move for a better job, employers have a narrower scope of competition, which adds to downward pressure on wages and benefits.

parineum 2y ago

> Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental market. It certainly will. Why would anyone sit in a rental property that makes no money rather than just put it in a savings account? Even with how bad the return on investment is for savings accounts, it's miles better than 0. Sure a private entity can still rent technically but they wouldn't. Let's not consider what's legal, let's consider what people would actually do. That leaves one entity who will be willing to rent, the government. Nevermind the incredibly poor reputation that government housing has, how will they set prices? What effect will that have on private home ownership in general? What effect will that have on personal my mobility? I would have great concerns that you'd be stuck where you were born doing the same job your parents did because nobody would ever leave their guaranteed housing in high opportunity areas. And what of commercial real estate? And then we circle back to public housing. A thing that already exists and nobody wants to be in. Once the rental market is destroyed and the housing market follows because individual house sellers can't compete with the government funded and subsidized rental market, nearly everyone will live in public housing where a faceless beaurocrat is responsible for the maintenance of thousands of properties that they really don't care about. Low income neighborhoods will have underfunded repair services with ling wait times and shoddy workmanship while the nice neighborhoods will enjoy prompt service by qualified technicians. I get that the current situation isn't great but it'd be nice to come up with a better solution than destroying the whole housing market in favor of what would inevitably lead to Soviet style housing projects[1]. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchevka https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchevka