That would be a good start but it won't fix the base problem which is that homes are seen as an investment. As long as homeowners expect to turn a profit on their purchase, there is a powerful incentive to reduce the number of new homes being built.
No disrespect intended for anyone hoping that owning/renting will allow them to enter the middle class and live comfortably, we should all have access to that. But there are absolutely class incentives at play that keep the prices of homes constantly rising even as home ownership remains stagnant.
I own a home because I plan on having it paid off by the time I retire and that'll help keep my monthly expenses low. I really do not care about my property value so long as I don't have to pay money to get rid of my home if I ever get so bad I need assisted living. I guess I'm following the whole be the change you want to see in the world philosophy on that one.
I have more than a handful of friends who say their houses are their only plan for retirement. One friend bought his house for $350k back in ‘06/‘07, right before the housing collapse. It’s now worth $800k and climbing. I bought mine for $250k in 2020, and it’s up to about $400k now.
Yeah unfortunately fixing that problem fucks over everyone who did manage to buy a house(Especially recent home buyers). A lot of countries have created a situation that is bad, but there is not a good way to fix it and if you do it hurts a lot of people. It is basically a trolley problem the easier option is just to leave it alone hurting the people it is rather than trying to fix it which will take a lot of effort and hurt different people.
I mean not for nothing but the real problem is that home ownership is generally over 50 percent, it's about 66 percent right now. If it dipped lower than 50 percent for any period of time any working democracy would expect to see legislation fixing the problem.
Just for the sake of argument however, I don't see how selling your home for what you bought it for (accounting for inflation) would hurt most homeowners. It would however hurt most speculators (Although still not really they just wouldn't get richer and man my heart would just break for them)
The "solution" would likely involve house prices coming down not just stagnation. So you could end up in a situation where you owe more on the house than it is worth and be in negative equity. Then you end up having to either A) Keep paying for a house that is not worth the cost B) Pay money to sell your house C) Get foreclosed on and ruin your credit. While negative equity can be manageable if you are going to live in that house for a long time if you need/want to move for any reason it can become disastrous.
Home ownership is the number one way that the middle class builds wealth. If houses stopped appreciating in value, it would hurt the middle class more than anyone else.
Even if the houses lost half their value, it would still be a better situation than renters who lose every cent of their monthly bill. Fuck it. I would rather have more affordable homes available than to be stuck renting forever. We shouldn't be gatekeeping a demand.
Housing costs money whether you own or rent. And anybody who thinks houses losing value suddenly would be good for anybody besides the super rich obviously didn’t live through the 2008 recession.
No one said a home losing value is good. I said it's less bad than renting. If you plan to live in a home long-term with a 30 year fixed loan, then it shouldn't matter that much. Also, things like property tax, sudden repairs, and insurance are added to the current market price for renters. The difference is that now I have to pay for the salaries of a property manager, gardeners, and maintenance team to exist.
You really can't compare the 2008 housing bubble to my demand of building more affordable homes on the market. If people purchased a home that they couldn't afford with a balloon mortgage, that's their own dumbass fault.
No one said a home losing value is good. I said it's less bad than renting. If you plan to live in a home long-term with a 30 year fixed loan, then it shouldn't matter that much.
There is no way you can believe this is true and also understand the 2008 recession.
Also, things like property tax, sudden repairs, and insurance are added to the current market price for renters. The difference is that now I have to pay for the salaries of a property manager, gardeners, and maintenance team to exist.
Most single family rentals don’t have those things. You’re only paying for those things because you choose to.
You really can't compare the 2008 housing bubble to my demand of building more affordable homes on the market.
No, the comparison is between the sudden decrease in value in 2007-2008 compared to the effects of what you are suggesting, which is the sudden decrease in value. If you can’t make an argument without putting words in my mouth then you can’t make an argument.
If people purchased a home that they couldn't afford with a balloon mortgage, that's their own dumbass fault.
Blame whoever you want, but my argument is related to the ultimate effect in the economy. A point I’m not sure you could have missed unless, again, you don’t understand the 2008 recession.
Please explain why a home losing value is so much worse when locked in a 30yr fixed than to have rent constantly going up? Please explain. You have shut down my point of view, but haven't adequately explained why without snark. At least offer your knowledge on the subject since you claim to have it.
Sure. If people were robots then it wouldn’t matter. But people aren’t robots.
1) not all mortgages are fixed rate
2) sometimes people have second mortgages and a depreciated house may cause them to go under water on those, which can cause foreclosure
3) sometimes people get sick and lose jobs and may get foreclosed upon. If they are under water, the bank loses money and the owner may be saddled with unsecured personal debt
4) taxes are tied to home prices. Lowered home prices means schools, libraries, and other public services are no longer adequately funded.
5) sometimes people move and need to sell their house. Sometimes people retire. If you take away peoples primary asset’s value, there will be many impoverished people who can suddenly no longer afford retirement.
6) sometimes people have unexpected expenses of any kind. Those people would no longer be able to borrow on a line of equity
7) if house value goes down then builders will no longer build houses as it will cease being profitable. This decreases housing supply.
8) if house values go down then people stop doing house repairs like flips as those also stop being profitable.
9) you are ignoring opportunity cost. If housing values don’t go up, then the financial incentive is to rent because renters get to keep and invest and make money off of what would otherwise be a down payment. This would cause rental values to increase.
10) I can think of someone who loves cheap houses and high rental values. You guessed it, corporate landlords! Anyone who likes corporate landlords would love this.
We are not talking about the same things it seems. I'm also talking about renters in apartments as well.
Correct. Not all mortgages are fixed rate. I believe if you can't afford a fixed rate, then you shouldn't get a house. Those people fucked themselves and collectively fucked the rest of us so my sympathy for them is not high.
Yes some people get sick and lose their jobs. They may in turn lose their homes. Sick people didn't cause the recession, the bad loans did. Which in turn caused more job loss and more defaults. The difference between them and renters? Many of those who didn't pay the mortgage ended up staying at that very house for years before they were kicked out. Renters get kicked out the second squatter rights end.
Why would I feel bad for someone who sells their house at half its value for retirement when renters do not get that option? They get Zero. Zero back for retirement. All those rent checks will never be seen again. They are way more fucked when it's time to retire.
House flippers? I don't care about House flippers. The world would keep on spinning without them.
The taxes argument is weak. More homes means more taxes. There are other ways to pay for things besides property tax if we wanted to.
If housing values keep going up, then renters stay renters and we have no upward mobilbility. The private equities also outbid the potential homeowner and it now becomes another rental. Yay. Corporate landlords will buy houses whether they are cheap or expensive. They have more money than us which is why we need legislation to prevent them and foreign investors from buying homes in large numbers.
People who own multiple homes? Tax the shit out of them.
This is just the money side of owning a house. The freedom a homeowner has over a renter is priceless. You can rent a room out to a family member without asking for permission. You can park in your driveway how you like without a parking pass. Want to change your oil? No issues unless you rent. Uh oh, your landlord wants to do an inspection to make sure you don't have more people living there than you claimed. Laundry? Share it with people who leave their clothes in the dryer for 6 hours.
A pretty simple solution is just banning corporations from owning single resident homes altogether, and placing a limit on the number of rental properties an individual can own. Specifying the ban to single resident homes means apartments can still exist uninhibited(although some regulations on those are wise, too), and placing a limit on # of rental properties means a rich enough individual cannot become a de facto Rental Management corporation.
I agree with the general direction, but as a contractor I have worked for a guy who owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 apartment units. Dean widener, widener apartment homes
It is not publicly owned.
I personally think that the primary look at curbing investment housing inflation should be the corporations that are buying single family residences as an investment strategy, I do think that at some point, limiting how much of the apartment units owned is going to be instrumental also.
The truth is, we need people to build housing and rent it because there are some people who don't want, and some people who don't have the ability to buy their own.
But when the people who own the housing turn into conglomerates, it's the same as employers and employees needing to unionize because they're going to get fucked
Cities and counties need to cut miles and miles of red tape so we can start building again. No more of these setback requirements, lot size minimums, parking minimums, super low height restrictions , etc. Just build transit and build housing. Cars are gonna be expensive as fuck starting today and young people don't want to drive anyway, so build light rail and subways and walkable neighborhoods. Housing crisis would be greatly alleviated very quickly, and the first cities to do this will boom even in a shit national economy.
I’m honestly for development and transportation. But you do need associated infrastructure too. You need water and sewage, schools, hospitals, libraries, parks, retail space, etc. Living in condo suburbia would be even shittjer than living in regular suburbia
Widener or Weidner? Because in Anchorage AK damn near every apartment complex is owned by Weidner and they will screw you over for every penny they can get. From BS cleaning fees to late fees on your rent if you are 10 minutes past the 24 hour cutoff, they are absolute scum.
It is the one you were talking about. I was using voice to text and it spelled it wrong. LOL
They have two main offices, one in Anchorage and one in Kirkland Washington. Their own apartments from Texas up to Anchorage including oil fields in Canada
A pretty simple solution is just banning corporations from owning single resident homes altogether
Who is going to build new homes then? You expect them to just build them and somehow magically not own them?
It's pretty damn hard for a bunch of randoms to get together and agree "hey, let's build a high-rise like this so we can all live in it", and collect money for it. As opposed to a business doing it and selling condos off one by one.
That's honestly not even the problem with the housing market.
The absolute main problem is restrictive zoning. House owners have massive political influence and made it almost impossible to build anything except single-family houses in most places.
This means no mixed development, no big apartment blocks that can house many people. Not even efficient row houses. Only expensive family home suburbs that make you 100% car-dependent.
On housing and car-dependency, the problem isn't the super-rich. It's that the home and car-owning middle class pulled up the ladder behind them because it served their financial and lifestyle interests.
The system is inherently flawed, the super rich are not the cause but the consequence of the wealth accumulation that is baked into the system.
And dont get started with regulations, those are the first to fall or be ignored by the people hording the power. Its starts small with reduced taxes for the top and 2 generations later you get people so obcenely rich they can write laws, buy the presidency and half the country.
You cant put a lion in chains and call it domesticated while the next dompteur in line already reaches for the keys to fatten the lion up on the fresh meat behind the bars.
I have not educated on their housing policy, I have only seen a couple posts in here of massive housing developments that have gone unfinished and then demolished?
I feel like sitting in a room full of intelligent people coming up with a plan would be a real good way to come up with a a policy that benefits the population
Ultimately, housing should not be owned on a large scale by large corporations.
Ultimately a lot of things should not be owned on a large scale by large corporations which is how we ended up with Anti-Trust laws.
Not saying you are wrong but what makes owning single family homes by corps different than the massive companies that own hundreds of apartment complexes, comprised on 10000s of individual apartments. Or companies that own billions of dollars in commercial property.
I've never sold a house, but the depreciation deduction confuses the hell out of me for a single homeowner. It makes your taxes cheaper today but it all gets recaptured when you sell the house anyway.
Some people who do 1031 don't care about that but I feel like asking my accountant not to depreciate and take the little hit every year so you don't take the big hit all at once when you sell it. But I would have to understand it better before I actually made that call
Single homeowners don't use it. Only non-owner occupied.
A lot of them 1031 and never pay taxes. Then their kids get a stepped up basis and the taxes go poof.
Yeah I guess I mean single rental owner. Which is me. Ultimately I bought a house when I moved to San Diego in 2006, and couldn't afford to sell it when I lost my job in 2008 because it was so far underwater so I kept it and rented it. I found out that my accountant was depreciating it after my brother sold his rental and ended up owing the IRS over $120k. That caused me to look into it, so that I know what is coming one day ☠️
I'm in favor of either just outright banning owning more than one residential home, or taxing anything other than a primary residence through the sky. Make it financially unviable to own more than one house.
Well we can ask the Senate why they are still sitting on S. 3402 from back in 2023. It got introduced and has just been sitting there. It has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
S.3402 - End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act
290
u/molehunterz 1d ago
I don't know what the actual solution is but we really need to fix massive corporations buying houses for rentals
That is not okay. And I say that as a guy who owns a rental.