Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

> We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people.

So the question is if the wealthy can remain wealthy, or if the poor can get houses?

I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me. Blessed are the poor, etc. etc. We should favor those who don't have wealth yet.

----------

There's other investments, and any such large-scale buildup of houses will take place over a long-enough time period that investors can reallocate wealth appropriately (reverse mortgages and then move the money to the stock market or something). Talk to a financial advisor if you need help moving wealth out of your house and dumping that onto someone else.

Meanwhile, there's no actual solution to the young couple who needs a house for their next baby to raise their family. Get them a damn house. Period.

View on HN

> I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me

In the UK the 13th largest landowner is the church. If it used its lands to build at average density of Hackney it could house 2.5 million people.

That's just regular church stuff in countries with organised centralised religion. That's why one of the major things the French Revolution did was first sell bonds against Church land, then directly sell off that land. It was wasted on the Church and the state needed the money and more productive use out of it (taxes, because of course Church land wasn't taxed).

I’m not religious, but it is worth noting that the Catholic Church does provide an insane amount of charity to the less fortunate. Their churches do take up space but they also do provide a ridiculous amount of shelter and free food for poor people.

The Catholic Church own land in the UK?

Globally the catholic church alone "owns" more land than the entire of France. It's total wealth is measured in dozens of billions of dollars. Obviously this is lower in the UK due to henry viii who confiscated it and gave some to his mates and formed a new church with all that land, but it's the same type of organisation.

Personally I'm of the opinion that no entity should own land, it should be rented from the people according to the value, but that's a minority opinion.

I mean I agree with you. But what I'm trying to convey is, if you go to voters and say, "here's a policy update that will fix the housing crisis and secure a future for the next generation, but it will also subtract $400K from your total wealth", they're going to not just say no, but fight you to their last breath. Proposed policies need to account for this if they're going to have a realistic hope of success.

And no, "move it to the stock market" will not fix this problem. Again, imagine putting this question to someone in their 50s with a house they have nearly paid off: "I could take this wealth and move it to the volatile stock market, or I could continue the policy of protectionist zoning restrictions so my always-appreciating asset can keep on appreciating as it has done for decades. Gonna go with door #2, Bob."

The wealthy throughout history have often made sacrifices when wealth was obviously unfair. Or when wealth was needed to move society forward.

What a wealthy person wants isn't necessarily greed, and we need to stop thinking like that. Even in Roman times, wealthy got together to fund various projects for the greater good.

What the wealthy want most of all, is if you take their wealth, that it truly does go towards a greater good. And "building more houses" takes wealth through free-market capitalist systems in any case (ie: its not a direct wealth taking we're talking about, but a steady change as zoning laws allow more houses to be built).

------------

Most of these "wealthy retirees" are looking aghast at their children's opportunities. My brother-in-law's parents may own 3 houses, but they were complaining to me about their daughter's inability to find a house in this current market.

They care far, far more about their daughter finding a good house and starting her family, than the value of their 3 houses. And I bet many, many, many other families are in the same situation. (Rich/Wealthy retirees scared for their children / grandchildren).

If they care more about their daughter finding a house, and they have 3, then why don't they give her one?

Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children.

In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location.

Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty.

Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store project-cars, or refuse to fix issues with the house... the young couple is not in a position to fix those issues themselves without pissing off the parents. (Its not their house after all). So getting their own house leads to a better relationship between child and parent anyway, and should be preferred.

It doesn’t sound like they’re particularly willing to make sacrifices then.

> Thirdly . . .

I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the concept of giving. If I give something to my family, it is theirs. They can use it, lend it, sell it, destroy it.

I agree with parent comment, if they have 3 houses, buy one for their daughter. As in put her name on the deed. Either they care about her and love her and their grandchildren or they are selfish and would rather have 3 rentals then what’s best for their kids.

Heh, fair enough.

I'm very tangentially related to them. (Sister's husband's parent + sister's husband's sister). So I'm not really going to meddle with their life choices.

----------

But I'm trying to say that policies that help their daughter (even if it costs them a bit of wealth by subtracting it from their 3x houses due to looser construction laws causing more houses to be built and therefore lowering the prices of houses in this area) is something they likely will support.

The houses have tenants, so they can't use them for their children? It sounds like they prioritize the income stream over their child finding a home. Yeah, it isn't fun for the people who need to relocate but that isn't some impossible hurdle.

Did you see point#1? The homes aren't in locations ideal for raising children in any case.

You need a good school district if you want your child to growup smart. Retired folk having 3x homes in lower-educated areas is fine for retired folk. But that doesn't mean that those homes are immediately useful to a new family.

Building new homes (and cheaper homes) in the better school districts makes more sense overall. Some neighborhoods naturally become "retirement communities" but kind of a ghetto for education (ie: young couples try to escape those areas due to poor schooling).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com