undefined | Better HN

0 pointsprogram_whiz2mo ago0 comments

It seems like in some areas (the good ones) its much higher (12%): https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-...

It also seems like it might be important to determine what share of _new_ development is being created for investment. The share of existing homes being owned isn't as important.

There's also the 2nd order effect. The price of property might go down if there weren't investors with tons of money to spend on a property.

0 comments

epistasis2mo ago

All housing is investment due to the way it's owned, regardless of who owns it. For most people, it's by far their biggest investment, resulting in extreme political activity.

We must confront that fact, or negate it, for example by taxing away the investment opportunity.

Investors buy housing to rent it out to others, that's the investment. People who own their own home implicitly pay themselves rent, by choosing to live in what they own versus renting instead.

Getting non-resident owners out of housing only means that renters have been banned from an area.

program_whizOP2mo ago

Isn't that circular reasoning? Charging rent means its an investment, but also just living in a home is "paying yourself". Is there any way to live on a property that isn't an investment (I suppose just staying there while the government owns it?).

epistasis2mo ago

No, as long as the housing is bought and sold and priced by the market it's always investment. Homeowners talk freely about how it's an investment, choose their own home for its investment properties.

It's not circular it just is, under our ownership scheme. Adding a 100% land value tax does remove the investment characteristic, though, as it removes the speculative aspect of land, and in fact drives the price of land to $0.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsprogram_whiz2mo ago0 comments

It seems like in some areas (the good ones) its much higher (12%): https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-...

It also seems like it might be important to determine what share of _new_ development is being created for investment. The share of existing homes being owned isn't as important.

There's also the 2nd order effect. The price of property might go down if there weren't investors with tons of money to spend on a property.

0 comments

epistasis2mo ago

All housing is investment due to the way it's owned, regardless of who owns it. For most people, it's by far their biggest investment, resulting in extreme political activity.

We must confront that fact, or negate it, for example by taxing away the investment opportunity.

Investors buy housing to rent it out to others, that's the investment. People who own their own home implicitly pay themselves rent, by choosing to live in what they own versus renting instead.

Getting non-resident owners out of housing only means that renters have been banned from an area.

program_whizOP2mo ago

epistasis2mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse