Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcpt | Hacker News Reader

You do that by building enough houses to make housing unattractive to investment firms

Alternatively, we adjust the tax code to reflect the instinct that people should deserve to keep a larger percentage of money when they actually worked to earn it, and that income that's essentially free to people who already have lots of money should maybe be taxed at a higher rate.

I realize this is a spicy take, but we've really got to get away from this thing where we advantage passive income for wealthy landowners. It didn't work out well for society in enlightenment-era France, it didn't work out well in Victorian England, it didn't work out well in Tsarist Russia, and I'm not convinced that removing birthright qualifications and primogeniture makes all that much more equitable in the modern USA than it did in any of those periods that we tend to look back on as being indefensibly elitist.

Or stop stealing everyones money through inflation?

All models are wrong. But the model that suggests that inflation is directly controlled a knob that policymakers can turn on a whim is incredibly useful to the people who stand to profit the most from deflationary policies.

And the opposite has been the excuse of every abusive government in history.

To be fair, the income isn't "free" and the margins are basically zero for small-time property owners on the rent itself. The bulk of the income comes from appreciation in value of the real estate, and when you sell you owe capital gains taxes (which are exempt on sales of a primary residence). And in most places the property taxes are higher, for my home it's about 15% higher.

I only know this because I have been preparing to rent my primary residence to see if it's more economical to sell today or hold and sell later, while renting. The answer is the latter, but in terms of real cash I will be in the red for about 2 years until the (very small) difference in mortage + insurance + taxes + upkeep and the rent will be profitable. And even then, it's maybe $150/month.

All told it's a slightly better investment than S&P 500 index funds, but resistant to downturns. But it's not a real source of passive income, you don't get your cash out for years.

It sounds like you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who's wealthy enough to take on a few rental properties of their own. The economics start looking rather different from the perspective of a real estate speculation hedge fund. The same forces that make it such easy money for them are also the ones that make it not such easy money for you. When they drive up prices it curtails any more liquid form of asset growth you might have by pulling all the money over to the on-paper value of the property. That's fine for them because real estate is still pretty darn liquid from the perspective of hedge funds and REITs. But it's not very liquid at all from the perspective of a small-time landlord who needs to actually look their tenant in the eye and tell them they're facing eviction because the owner of their home needs to free up some spending money. This, in turn, helps them by creating barriers to entry that push smaller competitors out of the business and securing their place in the oligopoly they're trying to engender.

The actual number of residential properties owned by hedge funds is a pittance compared to the number owned by individuals and small time land lords. So I have a hard time seeing how they're pushing smaller competitors out of the business when the smallest competitors aren't even doing it as a business.

> All told it's a slightly better investment than S&P 500 index funds, but resistant to downturns

This is incredibly bad for society. Investing in businesses that hire people and make goods and services should never be disadvantaged relative to hoarding a plot of land, and it is the folly of the anglosphere that we've allowed land hoarders to siphon so much money from people doing actually productive things.

I think you're making broad statements about macroeconomics without thinking too hard about it.

If you're spending $X in rent and have $Y in cash, whether or not it's better for you personally to put that money into equities, treasuries, or real estate depends almost entirely on the current interest rate.

So while to me personally, it makes more financial sense to rent the property, the same could not be said of anyone that would purchase or rent the property today.

The market rates for housing, either for sales or rent, is pretty much the same when looked at as a monthly payment. The only question is whether or not one has $Y in cash for a downpayment and if they will come out on top if they use that money for a mortgage instead of putting it into the stock market. Owning your home is not always better than renting, it depends entirely on your situation and the current market.

Yes a Land value Tax also would be great

There is never enough houses, or they are located in the middle of nowhere thousand of kilometers from nearest subway station or supermarket.

You're assuming everybody wants/needs a single family with a yard.

SFHs should be expensive and considered a luxury. At least in a desirable urban/suburban location.

We could/should/must provide more housing in those desirable areas, but it likely should be a mix of high-rise, mid-rise, small apartment units (which could be owner-occupied or rentals), duplexes and triplexes, and row-homes/townhomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com