I’m a landlord and yes it is. My taxes doubled last year because of the stupid housing bubble and so we had to raise rent as well. Gotta make a profit here for this investment to be worthwhile.
Sell your building. Your taxes went up because your property value went up. You aren't entitled to a profit on rent. If you sell your building below what it's valued at, you'll still make a hefty profit, and it'll cause the value of other buildings to lower.
Land owners seem to feel entitled to businesses with no risk. Costs are always passed down, even if it makes people homeless. I'm more than happy with you going out of business if an event that makes you richer isn't an event that you can handle in terms of cost.
Maybe if people didn't buy property they don't live in as an investment then things like the stupid housing bubble might not happen in the first place.
Personally I think owning a residence you don't actually live in should just straight up be illegal, but I'm admittedly pretty radical about parts of the system that seem to exist solely to make the rich richer.
So, if I am going to live in an area for a year... I should be required to purchase a house, including all the money, time, and effort that involves? I would hate to live in a world where that was the case.
I have both owned and rented at different points in my life. There have been times where renting was a better choice for me, for a variety of reasons. I am glad that renting is an option.
In a world where there was no rentals there would probably be new things we can't imagine such as community ownerships. The specific thing that shouldn't exist - in parent commentors and myself is that the renter is paying money so that the actual owner pays off the property for their benefit, not the renter.
If some kind of community property system exists (not for ALL properties but a large number of them) then any rent you pay in say New York is also paying down a virtual mortgage you have the the "community" that spans the country. Like a virtual HOA.
That's how it used to work in the UK with social housing. The local authority would collect the rent and it would be used for upkeep of the properties, with surplus going to other public works. This was set up in the decades following the Second World War as Britain rebuilt, and it generally worked really well.
But then a right-wing government came to power and sold most of the social housing off, while banning local authorities from building any more. So now, we have the situation here where the large majority of tenants are renting from private landlords, who are just pocketing all the rent for themselves and doing the bare minimum upkeep, while holding a rapidly appreciating asset.
Which is exactly what the right-wingers wanted, but of course doesn't help everyone else who isn't a landlord, and just wants somewhere decent and affordable to live.
> Maybe if people didn't buy property they don't live in as an investment then things like the stupid housing bubble might not happen in the first place.
Sure would be awful for a rental market to exist. Without rental there’d be only be home owners and homeless and that is clearly a better world.
There's no guarantee that builders will use the loosened restrictions to build the most efficient housing. In fact they will most likely build the most profitable housing instead.
The most profitable is on the high end - so marble countertops, stainless steel appliances, etc. All the builders will race to build as much of that as they can, as fast as they can. Then, when the market is glutted, they'll be unable to sell off their investments. Builders will end up with their capital all sunk in cheap land and expensive housing. no one can afford to buy. The builders can't sell the cheap land since they leveraged it to pay for developing the expensive housing. They can't sell the expensive housing because the market has temporarily dried up. The builders will just wait until the glut resolves and continue business as usual.
Meanwhile, there is not really that much more actual housing for the low end market. Some builders made a bunch of money and some craftsmen got extra work building houses they can never afford.
> Then, when the market is glutted, they'll be unable to sell off their investments. Builders will end up with their capital all sunk in cheap land and expensive housing. no one can afford to buy. The builders can't sell the cheap land since they leveraged it to pay for developing the expensive housing. They can't sell the expensive housing because the market has temporarily dried up. The builders will just wait until the glut resolves and continue business as usual.
If there’s a glut in the market prices fall. If you have invested a lot of money in something in the hopes of selling it at a profit and you can’t you go out of business and your assets are sold. So if you over leverage and prices fall you go out of business and lose all your assets and the bank may lose some of its assets. Housing supply increases though. In a market where there’s excess demand at current price points (rising prices) that’s good.
Capitalism doesn’t make ever increasing housing prices, zoning does.
I respect the honest response. In my case, I'm not rich. I’m just trying to build up enough passive income to retire someday. There’s no pension for me. I can’t depend solely on my 401K. I’m just trying to be moderately responsible about my own future.
> My taxes doubled last year because of the stupid housing bubble and so we had to raise rent as well. Gotta make a profit here for this investment to be worthwhile
Surely you see stuff like this is part of what is driving this very bubble?
