There should be a hard limit of houses you can buy. Two by default (the one you live in and one you can rent to someone, maybe with a requirement that you need to live there occasionally) and an additional one for each child if he or she doesn’t have one yet.
We should really start by limiting that. If we start treating housing as a basic right, which we should, there’s zero reason a company should be allowed to own housing to profit off of. It’s a far bigger problem than my landlady who owns five flats. We can talk about limits for people like her later.
For sure. But we don’t even consider water a basic right and concede unlimited water rights to mega corporations before reserving water access to the local population. So I have no hope for that to happen with housing…
In Cuba they have a law that requires you to sell your house if you buy a new one. That also means you can’t be a landlord or else you yourself would be homeless. They also have a law that guarantees that if you don’t own your own home, you at least get public housing guaranteed, which has rent capped at 10% of income so it can never exceed that. They have the lowest homelessness rate in all of the Americas.
And they’re guaranteeing this super affordable public housing all while under a comprehensive trade embargo for 60+ years imposed by the most powerful nation there is, who also happens to be their neighbor.
Never believe that housing “needs” to be expensive, it’s 100% a decision made by people who profit from it.
First 5 investment properties should carry a 1% property income tax that is directly funneled into a housing development program, then a 5% property income tax on the next 5, 10% on the next 10…
Realestate is the safest and highest yield investment working people can make to build generational wealth. Dont cut the throat of the guy who can afford a brand new Audi to spite the guy who has to decide between wether his driver fetches the Rolls or the Bentley.
People should be able to aspire to being rich, just not filthy rich.
The problem is the taking beyond their need, not if it’s many doing a little bit each or a few doing a lot each.
A swarm of locusts still leaves you with nothing to eat, even if each one only takes a bit (and unlike people buying a handful of houses to profit from merely owning them, the locusts only eat what they need).
Im advocating for pushing the wealth from the top down. Make it financially non viable to own hundreds of houses, make it seriously sub optimal to own dozens over the long term.
A lot of new development is driven by investors, to build a new house you need to live somewhere while its built, and pay for the land and pay for the build in stages as it goes. That pretty much requires you to be able to cover two mortgages at once. Most investors I’ve met are buying off the plan when its a block of dirt or an unleveled paddock and consequently getting it CHEAP. They pay say $500k for a house that will sell for $800k when its finished because average working people cant cover the difference. But the house gets built and adds more supply to the system.
If you destroy property investing as a market, you will seriously hamstring new development and make the problem worse. You need to make owning thousands over the long term nonviable but make investing and adding to the supply be the money maker.
There should be a hard limit of houses you can buy. Two by default (the one you live in and one you can rent to someone, maybe with a requirement that you need to live there occasionally) and an additional one for each child if he or she doesn’t have one yet.
The problem is most houses are being bought by huge companies, not people.
We should really start by limiting that. If we start treating housing as a basic right, which we should, there’s zero reason a company should be allowed to own housing to profit off of. It’s a far bigger problem than my landlady who owns five flats. We can talk about limits for people like her later.
For sure. But we don’t even consider water a basic right and concede unlimited water rights to mega corporations before reserving water access to the local population. So I have no hope for that to happen with housing…
In Cuba they have a law that requires you to sell your house if you buy a new one. That also means you can’t be a landlord or else you yourself would be homeless. They also have a law that guarantees that if you don’t own your own home, you at least get public housing guaranteed, which has rent capped at 10% of income so it can never exceed that. They have the lowest homelessness rate in all of the Americas.
And they’re guaranteeing this super affordable public housing all while under a comprehensive trade embargo for 60+ years imposed by the most powerful nation there is, who also happens to be their neighbor.
Never believe that housing “needs” to be expensive, it’s 100% a decision made by people who profit from it.
Exactly. Good housing can be done.
Shortages are an issue, and desirable only by capitalism – because it drives up prices.
First 5 investment properties should carry a 1% property income tax that is directly funneled into a housing development program, then a 5% property income tax on the next 5, 10% on the next 10…
Realestate is the safest and highest yield investment working people can make to build generational wealth. Dont cut the throat of the guy who can afford a brand new Audi to spite the guy who has to decide between wether his driver fetches the Rolls or the Bentley.
People should be able to aspire to being rich, just not filthy rich.
The problem is the taking beyond their need, not if it’s many doing a little bit each or a few doing a lot each.
A swarm of locusts still leaves you with nothing to eat, even if each one only takes a bit (and unlike people buying a handful of houses to profit from merely owning them, the locusts only eat what they need).
Im advocating for pushing the wealth from the top down. Make it financially non viable to own hundreds of houses, make it seriously sub optimal to own dozens over the long term.
A lot of new development is driven by investors, to build a new house you need to live somewhere while its built, and pay for the land and pay for the build in stages as it goes. That pretty much requires you to be able to cover two mortgages at once. Most investors I’ve met are buying off the plan when its a block of dirt or an unleveled paddock and consequently getting it CHEAP. They pay say $500k for a house that will sell for $800k when its finished because average working people cant cover the difference. But the house gets built and adds more supply to the system.
If you destroy property investing as a market, you will seriously hamstring new development and make the problem worse. You need to make owning thousands over the long term nonviable but make investing and adding to the supply be the money maker.
Too soft. You should not be able to own a house in which you’re not gonna live at least 6 months and 1 day per year. Period.
People shouldn’t be able to buy summer homes and weekend retreats? Fuck that.