Building more housing is great but if we don't address the speculation market no one will be able to afford them.
Investment firms shouldn't be allowed to own cities worth of property
Investment firms shouldn't be allowed to own cities worth of property
Comments
The experience in Australia has mostly been driven by individual investors propped up with outsized tax subsidies (they get to claim mortgage payments against their salary AND a capital gains tax discount of 50%) along with weak renter protections.
The effect has been quick with investors dropping out of the market and selling to owner occupiers. As a result, vacancies have increased and rents have decreased.
In car terms we've spent decades in 2020 market shortage.
I've never owned a new car, I've never lived in new housing, but my used cars and used housing is cheaper when there's lots of new ones being made
https://youtu.be/0Flsg_mzG-M?si=z-ZovurFriDVvR2v
Hearts and minds are harder to change.
and one can go further and even say one must live in same city to buy in that city
cuts down on the BIG RICH SHIT living in some tower in big city buying up homes all over and renting at stupid prices
that one cant own more then x number of homes
or more then one apartment building
Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Etc, Etc..They will squeeze out every nickel they can for a Return.. They Line their Pockets at the expense of all..🎯
Supply exists, it's just held in manufacturers scarcity
I know a guy in Denver who bought a condo to store his bikes
Taxing the rich & regulating AirBnb/Vrbo = no more housing crisis
"Speculation" is just another word for capitalism.
Capitalism, for all its flaws, is still the least bad way to run things.
It needs regulations arrived at through dispassionate arguments
There is nothing wrong with investment firms investing in homes for people to live in.
You didn't understand what I said so you're dodging responding to it. It wasn't even that complicated:
Do investment firms increase the availability and affordability of housing? Y/N?
The answer to me is obviously "yes".
But you seemed prepared to explain yourself and I am listening.
It seems more likely the answer is no. We already have a housing shortage and it has been exacerbated by short term rentals across the country. You seemed offended by the words "profit seeking." From one capitalist to another, don't treat it like a religion.
The real enemies to the American people are these investment firms. Problem is if they are eradicated, so is our market.
Red or blue, they got us by the balls.
2. Govt. can build houses using its own employees & land
3. Govt. can rent those houses out at ⅓ the market rate
4. After maybe 12 years.... paid off. Hand over the deeds
5. Rinse. Repeat.
6. 30 years? No rent. Everyone's a householder.
https://www.gov.sg/explainers/a-home-for-everyone-singapores-public-housing
Right to housing legislation
Public and co-op housing
Rent control
Speculative property tax
Progressive property tax
Vacancy taxes
Expropriation of vacant properties
Limitations on multiple property ownership
Restrictions on corporate ownership
Foreign buyer restrictions
Limited-equity housing
Public land banking and community land trusts
Better zoning
Better urban planning
More sustainable building practices
What we get:
"We have to remove red tape so rich developers can build more houses!"
🙄
Nobody seems to be talking about building public housing using public labor.
Landlord licensing, and out of state landlord taxes.
First to be a landlord you must register with the city government, and fill out a tax form. If you do not live in the city or have the business headquarters there you pay a 200% tax rate on top of property tax.
Just big company towns with private militias/militaries.
Good times.
Dumb!
Building more housing is the solution to both the housing shortage and speculation
https://www.affordablebc.ca/land_value_capture