If you want to live of your rents, buy a commercial or industrial building, speculate with that. But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary.
We should reward the person who lives in a normal house below their means, and buys an apartment as an investment (which is private capital into new construction that wouldn't have happened if they didn't do it), then rents it out, which increases stock on the rental market, and decreases rental yields.
If you want to tax ALL housing the same, including people's only house, then sure, go for it. Or better yet, tax all land ownership. Just don't distort people's behavior by making a special exception for their main house.
If you take speculation out of the housing market, storing net worth in your main house becomes a lot less attractive.
A house used to be viewed as a consumable good a hundred years ago, not an appreciating asset. (Before the New Deal commoditized mortgages)
Presumably you mean desirable land is scarce, which is true by definition, but land in the US is far from scarce.
Why do you think people are hoarding land today that could be used for housing developments and leaving it empty?
What is "too much" land that would subject it to your exponential taxation?
In short, you're just making things up. I'm glad you aren't in charge, though there are a concerning number of people with your mindset.
Spain is one of the last places on Earth I'd look to for economic policies. Enjoy your even higher unemployment and additional dying towns after attacking your only notable industry (tourism) I suppose.
There's plenty of housing available in places with no jobs, so mission accomplished in one sense!
Enjoy all the housing you could ever want when your town has even less economic activity than it did before!
Their houses aren’t even “investments” to them, they’re lifestyle properties that also may increase in value.
You invest 1 million USD in the stock market. It loses 90% of it's value. You basically have nothing but a tax write off on future gains.
I guess the housing equivalent would be an HOA, but honestly I would rather lose 90% of my money than sit through an HOA meeting…
This creates a distortion where people buy the biggest house they can afford, because everything else gets taxed.
In the Uk, at least, stamp duty is an obvious and infuriating driver of either buying big early or never downsizing. I did the former, parents do the latter.
Easy to solve the incentive problem yet we never will
If someone lives in a modest house and have further assets, there are many many (speculative) stores for that net worth that isn't housing.
> But residential construction should be protected to ensure each household is able to buy one with the average country salary
is political suicide, because you’re giving every voter with existing property a haircut on money they believe they already have, that they’ve usually borrowed to buy, and that they’ve financially planned on appreciating. Per Jean-Claude Juncker, “ We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”
You tell people: You have 20 years to sell your second/third residential properties, even at a good tax premium. But in 20 years you MUST have sold or you Will pay lots.of.taxes.
Edit: anyhow... I dont pretend to try to solve this complex issue in a couple of HN comments. It's just a general sentiment I have that the.only way to remove speculation from residential property is by government mandate.
I'm all for this. And I am "part of the problem " as I own 2 houses in 2 different states, and rent one at a freaking high rent price, because the market in that area is crazy.
Also, buying or building and operating an apartment complex isn't speculation in general, unless you consider basically any financial investment speculation.
I see no reason why someone providing capital to build a building and then renting it out to cover cost of that capital, maintenance and building cost is unreasonable or bad thing.
Issue really is when market is manipulated to keep prices going up beyond inflation or normal changes in demand. That really ruins everything. Real estate shouldn't really appreciate at all over time beyond inflation.
In no particular order:
- Financing company
- Realtor x 2 (both seller and buyer)
- loan servicing company (may or may not be the financing company)
- Insurance companies (multiple, depending on how financing is achieved, everything from property itself, to title, to PMI)
- Appraisers
- Home inspectors
- Closing attorneys
- County tax office
- City tax office
Basically... there's a reason that renting is the right call if you're not buying to hold for at least 5 years, ideally 10.
---
There absolutely is speculation in housing markets, but at least in the markets I'm familiar with - it's not really the landlords who are renting houses that are doing the speculation. It's the folks who buy up 100+ houses in depressed/low-income neighborhoods during recessions and then sit on empty property for years.
Some speculators serve a necessary function but many do not. In my area it's not uncommon to see homes listed where the last sale was ~6 months ago and it's clear they just slapped some paint on it, replaced appliances in ways that are not generally to my taste, and then doubled the asking price.
So I'm not certain how to tie that back to the original discussion about not needing a special case to handle people accumulating multiple residential buildings.
--
Side note - I don't see this case pretty much anywhere (and I'm literally in the process of looking at homes). I do see cases where a home sold 6 months to a year ago and the new price is ~10% higher, and I do see cases where a home sold in 2021/2022 and now the price is 2x higher.
But what I don't see any of is doubled sales price in a 6 month window with just a new coat of paint.
So I'm not certain how this is relevant at all given it's non-existent in any of the markets I'm looking at.
The problem is the scale of investment. For example, 3 companies own 19,000 houses, or 11% of the rental market, in the Atlanta, GA area[0]. The market is being "manipulated" in that investors with vast amounts of cash are outbidding folks trying to buy a primary residence, and by owning tens of thousands of homes, you exert a measure of control over the housing supply (i.e. "manipulation").
I don't believe that companies should have the ability to own so many houses, and the easiest way to curb this is to progressively tax investment property to the point that isn't financially feasible to own tens, let alone thousands, of homes.
0: https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/researchers-find-three-compa...
I think forcing people to buy home is worse than some party owning lot of homes.
Controlling 11% of the rental market is not enough to manipulate it, and that's one of the most concentrated markets in the US if I remember correctly. It's not an actual issue. If those 3 companies are in fact colluding, use the existing laws against that to prosecute them instead of inventing more counterproductive policies.
11% of the single family rental market. There are 200k rental apartments in Atlanta too.
Setting aside the "I know it when I see it" definition of speculation used by most people that changes as needed during a discussion and all the negative side effects that come with that, is telling people who produce a scarce asset that they will make less money when they sell it a good idea, or a bad idea?
Why do you assume that prices increasing faster than inflation is manipulation, and what is the definition of "normal changes in demand"?
Real estate historically hasn't appreciated faster than inflation over time. Supply constraints, historically low interest rates, and a couple other factors have changed that in a number of areas in the last couple decades, but not all. The Rust Belt is a prime example, yet for some reason that isn't relevant in these discussions.
So the 2nd, 3rd house taxes could be relatively low but for the 10th they would be ginormous.
These people do not affect rents in any meaningful way.
> Small investors who owned between one and five properties held 87% of the single-family homes owned by investors; those owning six to 10 properties owned another 4%
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/real-estate-investo...
Some companies buy and update homes then resell them. They don’t all do a cheap flip with a massive markup. Neither do all of them hold them long term to charge high rents. That seems like something that should probably be regulated rather than outright banned.
Beyond single-family homes, it’s very rare for someone to build an apartment building with all of the units already sold. In fact, most are not coops or condos and are rented long term. Those rents also keep going up. A big part of that is how hard it is to get a new complex, especially a mid-rise or high-rise building, permitted to build.
I think there’s a difference between a bank company “owning” a deed vs a PE company holding it for speculation and rent squeezing. You are right though that there has to be a system to hold inventory and we made Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac macro-economic instruments instead of those inventory stewards.
If you wanted to incentivize home buying for young families, then the demographic that needs the most incentives are old people whose kids moved out decades ago. Every single person I know has two aging parents living in 4 or 5 bedroom homes by themselves, my own included. I know people are sentimental about the homes they grew up in, but this is the biggest lever you could move: hike property taxes on properties with unused occupancy.
If you want to keep the home in the family, then this encourages the parents to give the home to one of their kids who actually need it because they're starting a family of their own.
Some people need to rent and some will never be able to of want to buy property. This is taxing them even more.
If we do something like this it should come from financial system. Like already you need 30% deposit when you buy investment property in NZ. Perhaps we should only give rental loans to new builds only.
this proposition literally solves nothing
and for the record I own one real estate, which I bought without mortgage and live there with my family
I suggest you do those things while homeless. Let me know how it goes.
Same goes for commercial, but in that case, I'd even suggest forefeiture if you are not reducing requested rent within a year of vacancy. Let someone else take over if you overspent.
All data indicates it's not the case, as well as common sense.
For homes, I don't know if there are. But I think taxes should be levied in line with incentives. If you place a wealth tax on property ownership, the only tangible thing that will happen is rents going up to offset. Since the tax applies to all landlords, it will be the closest thing to rent inflation.
What you really want to avoid is homes built but sitting empty. Whether that's a builder who can't sell at asking price, or a landlord not getting the rent they want doesn't matter. If the city sold a lot to you, they did so for improving home supply, not the developer's profits.
For commercial, my opinion was based on Louis Rossman's YouTube channel about New York. The hypothesis there is that loans are based on property value, which are tied to requested rent. Asking for a lower rent might mean they have to put up more collateral, which they can't. So they keep asking for high rates and leave it vacant.
Generally, there aren't any meaningful number of completely vacant homes in desirable areas in major cities. The caveats are there for cities like Miami where there are a significant number of second homes, cities like Detroit and Baltimore that have failed in some sense and experienced major population loss at some point, and rural areas that also have been experiencing population loss for some time.
I don't have a problem with vacation homes and most Americans don't seem to either, but if you do, okay.
The areas with declining population aren't really relevant to the discussion IMO, other than it's cheap housing that exists as a counterpoint to the people who claim no cheap housing exists.
> But I think taxes should be levied in line with incentives. If you place a wealth tax on property ownership, the only tangible thing that will happen is rents going up to offset. Since the tax applies to all landlords, it will be the closest thing to rent inflation.
I agree.
> What you really want to avoid is homes built but sitting empty. Whether that's a builder who can't sell at asking price, or a landlord not getting the rent they want doesn't matter.
Sure, but that's not a problem today. Builders aren't sitting on homes for extended periods of time, and landlords aren't leaving units empty for extended periods of time either. They are already disincentivized from doing so by existing carrying costs, so they don't.
> If the city sold a lot to you, they did so for improving home supply, not the developer's profits.
They presumably did it to generate revenue for the city, though there isn't much buildable city-owned land in most municipalities.
> For commercial, my opinion was based on Louis Rossman's YouTube channel about New York. The hypothesis there is that loans are based on property value, which are tied to requested rent. Asking for a lower rent might mean they have to put up more collateral, which they can't. So they keep asking for high rates and leave it vacant.
The commercial market is completely different than residential. Loan durations are shorter, terms are different, and there are many other factors that differ.
That analysis can't be applied to the residential market.