3 ms·

This is false. Can you cite a source for the idea that the 30-year mortgage was "founded" on the idea of appreciation? The thirty year mortgage was introduced t

by cma256 2mo ago

This is false. Can you cite a source for the idea that the 30-year mortgage was "founded" on the idea of appreciation? The thirty year mortgage was introduced to reduce the housing appreciation requirement the old balloon loan system relied on.

the_sleaze_ 2mo ago
I agree. The mortgage was to allow people to eventually OWN THE PROPERTY, not a leveraged investment. It's an interesting development that some (most?) regular people have forgotten that there is a 3rd option, not just rent or loan. You can actually OWN the thing and pay only property tax on it.
- willmadden 2mo ago
  You don't really own it because of the property tax. Unless you live in Malta or a handful of other countries you are effectively renting from the state.
  - petcat 2mo ago
    If paying property taxes is considered "renting from the state", then I'll be glad to pay the $600 a month in rent in order for the state and my county to maintain the roads, sewers, drains, school district and everything around me that allows me to enjoy my home and participate in society.
    - louthy 2mo ago
      Exactly, a house in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, quickly becomes worthless. If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.
      - willmadden 2mo ago
        You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology. The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer property owners under the threat of repossessing their property. If what you are claiming is true, then why does Malta have higher property values than countries with property tax? https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sliema https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sli... I would agree to a property tax if the voting systems worked fairly at a sufficiently granular level, but they don't. They are farces maintained by criminal organizations beyond a certain scale.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
        louthy 2mo ago
        You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc. People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish. I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic view of the world. Seemingly all cooperation or altruism is communism. It’s a national sickness. Government exists to do the difficult things that individuals or corporations can’t or won’t do. Like build a road network, provide security, or educate the nation’s children (for all, not just you). They have the buying power of a nation, something an individual, local group, or company could t achieve. And they often have the legal authority to do things that individuals or companies cannot (compulsory purchase of land when building a railway or road, for example) And the most effective way of paying for it is through a ‘national insurance scheme’ aka tax. And honestly, who cares about Malta? That’s just blatant whataboutism. Malta is a country of 500,000 people. How they raise funds to pay for their infrastructure isn’t important. The point is, they have to do it one way or another. A tourist destination like Malta could be better off with a tourism tax (assuming there are more hotel rooms than residential properties). The end result is the same. If you want a functioning society it is better to do it formally, rather than ad-hoc (for all but the smallest societies). Because otherwise the bureaucratic processes end up being repeated and become burdensome and in the worst cases descends into factionalism and tribalism. And the ad-hoc approach would certainly lead to inconsistency of provision. That can range from ‘a bit inconvenient’ to societal breakdown between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Is Government perfect? Of course not, but replacing it with an anarchic “I’m alright Jack” free-for-all is madness. It is better to work on the focus of what government is for and how to build the correct incentives for high performance.

by cma256 2mo ago

the_sleaze_ 2mo ago

I agree. The mortgage was to allow people to eventually OWN THE PROPERTY, not a leveraged investment. It's an interesting development that some (most?) regular people have forgotten that there is a 3rd option, not just rent or loan. You can actually OWN the thing and pay only property tax on it.

willmadden 2mo ago
You don't really own it because of the property tax. Unless you live in Malta or a handful of other countries you are effectively renting from the state.
- petcat 2mo ago
  If paying property taxes is considered "renting from the state", then I'll be glad to pay the $600 a month in rent in order for the state and my county to maintain the roads, sewers, drains, school district and everything around me that allows me to enjoy my home and participate in society.
  - louthy 2mo ago
    Exactly, a house in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, quickly becomes worthless. If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.
    - willmadden 2mo ago
      You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology. The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer property owners under the threat of repossessing their property. If what you are claiming is true, then why does Malta have higher property values than countries with property tax? https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sliema https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sli... I would agree to a property tax if the voting systems worked fairly at a sufficiently granular level, but they don't. They are farces maintained by criminal organizations beyond a certain scale.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - louthy 2mo ago
        You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc. People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish. I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic view of the world. Seemingly all cooperation or altruism is communism. It’s a national sickness. Government exists to do the difficult things that individuals or corporations can’t or won’t do. Like build a road network, provide security, or educate the nation’s children (for all, not just you). They have the buying power of a nation, something an individual, local group, or company could t achieve. And they often have the legal authority to do things that individuals or companies cannot (compulsory purchase of land when building a railway or road, for example) And the most effective way of paying for it is through a ‘national insurance scheme’ aka tax. And honestly, who cares about Malta? That’s just blatant whataboutism. Malta is a country of 500,000 people. How they raise funds to pay for their infrastructure isn’t important. The point is, they have to do it one way or another. A tourist destination like Malta could be better off with a tourism tax (assuming there are more hotel rooms than residential properties). The end result is the same. If you want a functioning society it is better to do it formally, rather than ad-hoc (for all but the smallest societies). Because otherwise the bureaucratic processes end up being repeated and become burdensome and in the worst cases descends into factionalism and tribalism. And the ad-hoc approach would certainly lead to inconsistency of provision. That can range from ‘a bit inconvenient’ to societal breakdown between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Is Government perfect? Of course not, but replacing it with an anarchic “I’m alright Jack” free-for-all is madness. It is better to work on the focus of what government is for and how to build the correct incentives for high performance.