-->
@Best.Korea
It makes sense if you can steal a person's life savings without killing him that is evidence enough for the government caring and not being greedy at all.
Property taxes on houses you don't live in
Posts
Total:
57
-->
@n8nrgim
Home developers would still build houses. That's their thing, so they'd just find a new equilibrium on the price point.
No, they wouldn't, their thing is to make a profit, if home prices crash, the cost of materials and labor become greater than what you can sell the home for and they stop building. New home construction is very cyclical, the crash of 2007 put half of the builders out of business, the ones that made it stopped building homes, years later when prices came back up they started building again, we still haven't caught up with demand, there are fewer homes than there are people who need a home to live it.
Incomes r still high in the usa and some landlords would still own multiple properties.
No they wouldn't, investors buy homes looking for a return on investment, this is a combination of rent payments vs mortgage and maintenance costs, plus price appreciation. When the return on investment in housing goes down, they find better places to put their money.
Instead of the the average house being 400k in the usa, which is self evidently absurd, maybe the new price point would be 200k.
It costs more than that to build one, and if that happened, the homeowners would all lose $200K in equity. So everyone is fucked, homeowners get ruined, builders go away, and renters don't have a place to rent.
I doubt it'd go as low as 100k but I dunno. Plus there would still be upward pressure in housing prices not just from high incomes, but our embedded mortgage system. The bottom line is that there would just be a better price point and u r too critical to obvious solutions. If u lived when cars were made, u would be one of the people saying cars hurtling past each other at 55 mph is a disaster waiting to happen.
If u lived when cars were made you'd say manufacturers should be allowed to make a profit, but they would magically still make cars because that's what they do, and if that happened, we'd all still be driving horse and buggy to work.
-->
@Greyparrot
Most other states have much more murders.
-->
@Greyparrot
It makes sense if you can steal a person's life savings without killing him that is evidence enough for the government caring and not being greedy at all.
Careful you don't give Trump any ideas, he would love to steal everyone's life savings
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is this all about California for you, do you live in California?
The other 49 states have houses too you know.
-->
@Sidewalker
The other 49 states have houses too you know.
Maybe he is living as a homeless in California.
-->
@Sidewalker
you have a lot of good points, that would need ironed out if this plan were to be implemented. but those are just the details. i think the crux of the issue, is that i think home builders would just find a new price point that isn't so ridiculously high, and you think they wouldn't be able to muster it. only an empirical study of this would show who is right, but, i think at least if we did this fifty years ago or sooner, it wouldn't be such a blast to the status quo. and, that's all you for sure have here... this would for sure be a blast to the status quo, and it could even cause recessions or even a depression if done the wrong way. but that's the thing with actual policy that actually helps people, it's a crash to the status quo and scandalous if not a blast to the existing power brokers. that doesn't mean they're bad ideas, they just need gradually phased in, or something. take almost any policy solution to the problems that ail us, and you will see existing power brokers lose out and entrenched lobbyists throw all hell at preventing change. this all doesn't mean all change is bad... there's winners and losers to everything. that doesn't mean we shouldnt try to form a more perfect union and do better. at any rate, this is a democracy and someone like trump would come along and deregulate it again and say it was common sense all along what we're doing. that dont mean it's true, though. most of major change that can help people, healthcare, gun policy, education, housing, etc, would require major shock to the system. you'd be the one standing in the way every single time. what's your usual method to help people? just criticize other ideas, like libertarians, or maybe do you just like to take incremental approaches that aren't such a shock to the system? my guess is that you dont have too many original ideas, and maybe just some DNC talking points.
-->
@Sidewalker
Do houses, their materials and labor 'have to be expensive?
For high quality houses I'd agree.
But for people without greater means, they could still build a house I'd think.
-->
@n8nrgim
my guess is that you dont have too many original ideas, and maybe just some DNC talking points.
sounds like the solution to every problem is more regulation, punishing producers, and higher taxes....
-->
@Greyparrot
As if unfettered capitalism is the solution? My ideas r measured and thought out, trying to strike the right balance between the free market and the common good. All libertarians and Republicans and skeptics can offer is criticism, no ideas themselves. 'More capitalism' that conservatives like to push and being the party of 'no', isn't the solution you think it is
-->
@n8nrgim
We have never had unfettered capitalism. How could you know?
On the other hand, we have tried for decades punishing producers, high taxes, and centralized control of the economy by a few elected elites.
Actually since the founding of the country and the commerce clause Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate commerce.
Maybe if we didn't have one man or one half of a Congress of 535 people regulating commerce with arbitrary rules for 340 million diverse people, we could have much nicer things. Worth a try to improve the lives of everyone. Maybe when we replace the government with AI, it will happen.
-->
@Greyparrot
I've had this convo plenty here. There r countries with unfettered capitalism, they're all third world countries. At the very least, our meager welfare state should be good enough, but even that's not good enough for you fiends
-->
@n8nrgim
There's no country on the planet with unfettered capitalism. Hell, just asking to keep what you produce is an idea that exists nowhere on this planet of thieves where those with a monopoly on violence get to decide what is your fair share.
-->
@Greyparrot
Violence is inherent in the system. It goes both ways. It's not just taking at gun point through taxes, it's also deprives resources at gun point from your side. And yes there r plenty of banana republics that r almost pure capitalism. Our meager welfare state should be the right balance, but ya all too crooked to leave it at that. The status quo and our split government will probably mostly vindicate me, about our supporting our meager welfare state. Cause no reasonable person could think unfettered capitalism is the right idea
-->
@n8nrgim
And yes there r plenty of banana republics that r almost pure capitalism.
name one.
And yes there r plenty of banana republics that r almost pure capitalism.name one.
Property prices are determined by supply and demand.
-->
@n8nrgim
you have a lot of good points, that would need ironed out if this plan were to be implemented. but those are just the details.
No, they are the fundamental reasons your plan is insane. You didn’t answer my first question, why can’t foreigners and corporations own homes? How does that benefit anyone?
i think the crux of the issue, is that i think home builders would just find a new price point that isn't so ridiculously high, and you think they wouldn't be able to muster it. only an empirical study of this would show who is right,
So your plan is counting on magic?
You are talking about my business, and the home construction industry empirically studies the living shit out of these issues. We are talking about a cyclical business where the players are investing hundreds of millions into building homes to meet demand, those hundreds of millions are at risk if they get the market wrong, and they spend millions on empirical studies to make sure that doesn’t happen. Like I said before, in 2007 we had a collapse like you are describing and half of the builders went bankrupt, the industry still hasn’t fully recovered, the reason home prices have gone up so much is the supply just isn’t there, the demand is great, and the higher the prices and interest rates get, the more people can’t afford to buy, there are more young families living with relatives than at any other time in history because there just aren’t enough homes.
but, i think at least if we did this fifty years ago or sooner, it wouldn't be such a blast to the status quo. and, that's all you for sure have here... this would for sure be a blast to the status quo, and it could even cause recessions or even a depression if done the wrong way. but that's the thing with actual policy that actually helps people,
Yeah, it sounds real nice to say this “actually helps people”, impressive even, but you still haven’t explained how this devastation to the status quo helps people, all homeowners lose equity, many many go bankrupt, home builders are devastated, and the US Economy goes to shit, and millions and millions of jobs go away, who exactly are the people this “actually helps”?
it's a crash to the status quo and scandalous if not a blast to the existing power brokers. that doesn't mean they're bad ideas,
No, the fact that they ruin the housing market and the US Economy and destroy the net worth of the vast majority of Americans and increases unemployment astronomically means they’re bad ideas.
they just need gradually phased in, or something. take almost any policy solution to the problems that ail us, and you will see existing power brokers lose out and entrenched lobbyists throw all hell at preventing change. this all doesn't mean all change is bad...
If everyone must suffer, so you can stick it to the sp called “power brokers” then so be it, right. Who are those dark nefarious power brokers we must fight against again? Homeowners, builders, the millions of people employed by the construction industry, renters, yeah, let’s fuck everyone over so the secret behind the scenes “power brokers” get there’s.
there's winners and losers to everything. that doesn't mean we shouldn’t try to form a more perfect union and do better. at any rate, this is a democracy and someone like trump would come along and deregulate it again and say it was common sense all along what we're doing. that dont mean it's true, though. most of major change that can help people, healthcare, gun policy, education, housing, etc, would require major shock to the system.Just tear it all down, something good will come out of it, if everyone suffers we can be sure those secret bad people suffer too.you'd be the one standing in the way every single time. what's your usual method to help people? just criticize other ideas, like libertarians, or maybe do you just like to take incremental approaches that aren't such a shock to the system? my guess is that you dont have too many original ideas, and maybe just some DNC talking points.
Rather than sit on my mom’s couch eating Cheetos, complaining and typing stupid shit you know nothing about and comically thinking you are "helping people" like you are doing, I’m in the arena, actually helping people. I’ve run a therapeutic riding center for the last 30 years (Sidewalker is a term from Therapeutic riding), I personally have helped thousands of handicap people live better lives. My business is affordable housing, I work for a builder proving new homes for people who can’t normally afford one, and I’ve put hundreds of families into their first home in the last 8 years. That’s some of my usual methods to help people, now it’s your turn pumpkin.
You seem to think sitting on your mom’s couch eating Cheetos and thinking up stupid shit is "helping people", and you are comically arrogant about it, well, other than that, is there anything else you do, have you ever actually been in the arena, ever actually helped someone by actually doing something to help, not counting doing something inanely theoretical on the couch, something you had to get off the couch to do that actually helped someone? Time to make something up and tell us all about it.
-->
@Sidewalker
Aww, why did you have to go admit you're a really good person publicly online? Now they will show you no mercy!
(I always kept your secret)
-->
@Greyparrot
Aww, why did you have to go admit you're a really good person publicly online? Now they will show you no mercy!(I always kept your secret)
Well, I revealed while I was bitch slapping n8nrgim, that should count for something.
You seem to think sitting on your mom’s couch eating Cheetos and thinking up stupid shit is "helping people", and you are comically arrogant about it, well, other than that, is there anything else you do, have you ever actually been in the arena, ever actually helped someone by actually doing something to help, not counting doing something inanely theoretical on the couch, something you had to get off the couch to do that actually helped someone? Time to make something up and tell us all about it.
He is a couch potato.
-->
@Sidewalker
It's not as effective as a slap of reality. I get that he lives in California, and housing is something Californians talk about all the time.
Few of them know the housing industry or basic economics, so they listen to paid pundits who convince the public that the current politicians really do care and will fix things, even though they objectively failed to do so for decades. It's getting to the point that most people are just giving up and are tired of the blame shuffling. FFS, they blamed cheeto-man during the 4 years he was out of office for the current state of things!
People are sick of it. There's a real chance Gavin won't survive this round of a recall vote.
It's not as effective as a slap of reality. I get that he lives in California, and housing is something Californians talk about all the time.
The most unaffordable homes are in Hawaii, where the typical property costs 9.1 times the median household income. Homebuyers in California (8.4) and Montana (6.6) also face steep home price-to-income ratios.
At the other end of the ranking, West Virginia (2.9) is the most affordable state to buy a home in, followed by Iowa (three) and Kansas (3.2).
-->
@Sidewalker
Look at it this way, the only way there would be a meltdown in the industry is if the rich own too much to begin with. In that case, a shake up would be plausible. According to Google most rich landlords only own 3 or 4 houses, usually. That's hardly going to make a dent on demand if they end up paying 10 to 30 percent on their profit. I don't know if corporations own an excessive amount, but if they do, that makes a shake up all the more needed, as mentioned. Really u r the one being arrogant, u act cock sure of your sky is falling rhetoric, whereas I admit im not sure. I don't know if my tax scheme would reduce demand by 10 percent, 25, or 50. It's almost surely not the same as the financial crisis 16 years ago, I just don't know the extent.
According to Google, corporations own 25 percent of homes. Would a 15 to 25 percent drop in demand be such a bad thing? The transition could be rocky, is all.
Im just trying to use data to draw inferences. Which is a lot more to speak for than knee jerk sky is falling rhetoric
The bottom line is implementing my idea might be rocky practically, but if we could transition into it slowly, it would probably work. Do you hear the opposition and what they r saying? The system can't handle corporations not owning 25 percent of homes? 65 percent of homes r owner occupied. I just can't see excluding corporations would cause financial Armageddon. Lol ridiculous, gtf outta here. As long as we responsibly transitioned into it
-->
@n8nrgim
The bottom line is implementing my idea might be rocky practically, but if we could transition into it slowly, it would probably work. Do you hear the opposition and what they r saying? The system can't handle corporations not owning 25 percent of homes? 65 percent of homes r owner occupied. I just can't see excluding corporations would cause financial Armageddon. Lol ridiculous, gtf outta here. As long as we responsibly transitioned into it
All your three suggestions still leave the majority of landlords still owning several properties.
-->
@Shila
I could live with that. Corporate ownership and people hoarding properties is a big strain on housing demand for ordinary people to compete with