To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit www.brilliant.org/howmoneyworks. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
What it will actually do is... 1st = force people with little income to sell their assets. 2nd = buy those assets who are already rich in discount. 3rd = then increase tax to the previous place so that even if you have income you can't participate. 4th = increase tax loophole so that you please the elite for your political Career. In conclusion, it is to force people who have no income out of their homes.
@@nabibunbillah1839not at all. The last housing downturn was a long term benefit to those with little income. Less spent on mere housing = more to spend elsewhere
The solution is simple for the political cost. You tax all land, EXCLUDING the land where your primary residence is built on. NOONE should pay taxes for a house that has been totally paid off, else you are just paying rent to the government. So the pensioners and ranchers are safe, as long as they actually LIVE in their property. Any other property past the land you live on can then be taxed. Simple.
I don't want my house to be an investment, i don't want my house to be an asset, i don't want my house to be anything finance bros even think about. I just want a goddamn place to live.
@@jonathanabgrall6075 Getting rid of entrenched politicians is incredibly difficult and SCOTUS just effectively legalized bribery this session. I admire your child like bliss
@@maxp3141 take 100 men on an island and make one of them the owner of the whole island and all of the agriculture and the other 99 have no choice but to rent from him and to work for him so they can buy the proceeds from h8s farms for food. Now take 100 men on an island and make one of them the owner of the other 99 as slaves. What is the difference economically?
I’m in Ohio and the housing market here over the last 7-8 years is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Homes that were bought for $130K in 2015 are now being sold for $590k. I’m talking about tiny, disgusting, poorly built 950 square foot shit boxes in quiet mediocre neighborhoods. Then you’ve got Better, average sized homes in nicer neighborhoods that were $300K+ 10 years ago selling for $750k+ now. Wild times.
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes.If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
Consider moving your money from the housing market to financial markets or gold due to high mortgage rates and tough guidelines. Home prices may need to drop significantly before things stabilize. Seeking advice from a financial advisor who understands the market could be helpful in making the right decisions.
Iynne Marie Stella is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment..
Speaking from Australia, for the love of all that is holy do not copy anything we did here. The lesson any country should take away from our example is the lower you make the barrier of entry into housing the more rich old fucks will buy houses and push prices up. You need a solution that targets the core issue of using houses as an investment asset classes.
A simple law that caps the amount of residential housing an entity can own to just one would fix that. Including apartment buildings. Do you want to own an apartment building? Congrats. You gotta love there, too. No house for you.
Fun fact, Romania under its vommunist rule had a law that allowed a person to own only one house or only one appartment, not two and not both. This lead to Romanians having one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. However, now that more free market laws are in place, rich people are buying a lot of homes and its becoming harder for younger people to purchase their first home.
@@HowMoneyWorksGetting ready to buy a yurt, because the ones under 35 generally can’t afford jack due to getting annihilated by bad policies, older generations and foreign investment.
Buying a home is challenging, especially if you're not paying in cash or avoiding a government loan. Even with just the minimum monthly payments on a 30-year mortgage, I’ll end up paying more than twice the value of my home. I was fortunate to buy before the market went wild, so I secured a good interest rate. I can't imagine trying to rent or buy in the current conditions.
I hope to own a home some day, not quite long I started investing. I'm very curious already and need help on how to enhance and increase my returns. Any good investment tips will be appreciated.
The enduring US stock market bull run evokes a mix of fear and excitement, presenting opportunities with insight, resulting in $780k gains in the past ten months, utilizing a portfolio advisor for a well-defined strategy.
I was 19 and spent my life savings on a down payment on a near totalled house. Originally it was valued at 60,000. 8 years later today, it's valued at $250,000. You'd think I'm rich, but if I sold it, I could only afford a smaller house. So f*cking weird.
I’m closing in on my retirement and I’d like to move from Regina to a warmer climate, but the prices on homes are stupidly ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%) do I just invest my spare cash into stock and wait for a housing crash or should I go ahead to buy a home anyways?
A lot of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $275k to $850K.
This is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation.
'Carol Vivian Constable, a highly respected figure in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her credentials, as she possesses extensive experience and serves as a valuable resource for individuals seeking guidance in navigating the financial market.
In my opinion, a housing market crash is imminent due to the high number of individuals who purchased homes above the asking price despite the low interest rates. These buyers find themselves in precarious situations as housing prices decline, leaving them without any equity. If they become unable to afford their homes, foreclosure becomes a likely outcome. Even attempting to sell would not yield any profits. This scenario is expected to impact a significant number of people, particularly in light of the anticipated surge in layoffs and the rapid increase in the cost of living.
I suggest you offset your real estate and get into stocks, A recession as bad it can be, provides good buying opportunities in the markets if you’re careful and it can also create volatility giving great short time buy and sell opportunities too. This is not financial advise but get buying, cash isn’t king at all in this time!
You are right! I’ve diversified my 450K portfolio across various market with the aid of an investment coach, I have been able to generate a little bit above $830k in net profit across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds.
Certainly, I am still working with *Izella Annette Anderson* and the beauty of it is her expertise extends to various aspects of financial advisory, including stocks. She has skillfully constructed a diversified portfolio for me.
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a caII.
Great video! For 2024, it’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market is because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.
I suggest you offset your real estate and get into stocks, A recession as bad it can be, provides good buying opportunities in the markets if you’re careful and it can also create volatility giving great short time buy and sell opportunities too. This is not financial advise but get buying, cash isn’t king at all in this time!
People often overlook the value of financial advisors until they experience the downside of emotional decision-making. I recall a few summers ago, after a difficult divorce, when I needed help reviving my struggling business. I did some research and found a licensed advisor who worked diligently to grow my reserves, even amid inflation. As a result, my reserves grew from $275k to around $750k.
this is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Melissa Terri Swayne” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
In Norway, there is a significant difference in tax for your primary living property and secondary properties, making it much more lucrative to sell a home as you move instead of hoarding real estate. It does not solve "affordable housing", but it helps.
I believe that this is a very good solution, however it would never happen in non-progressive countries (UK, USA, etc...) because the people in the government will likely have multiple properties in their names and don't want to pay extra tax. Politicians are out for themselves rather than representing the people.
Under America's current system it can't work. Hundreds of billions of dollars are sent overseas to forgien countries, and to support the massive influx of migrants. All straining the working class further. On top of that the simple supply and demand, more people in the country means more demand for housing. Most Americans can't even afford to purchase a home of have children, let alone a secondary property.
That's what China found out the hard way. It didn't matter how many barebone concrete shells sold as "homes" they built, because investment-wise it's the only game in town. So despite having at least twice as many properties as people, upwards of three generations' worth of life savings have to be poured into a single mortgage due to this market setup.
Homes being an investment is not the cause of the problem, it is an effect of policies which made investment in property comparable to investment in actual economic activity. We need to target those policies and homes will cease to be a lucrative investment.
Buying a home will always be an investment because it means you're not wasting money on rent. Renting out homes you own will always be an investment because someone else is paying the expenses while you build equity. Rental housing will always be necessary because 10s of millions of people need it. Whether they aren't financially responsible enough to pay for a house, haven't had time to save a down payment, don't want the responsibility of ownership, or don't plan on living in an area long enough to bother buying. Personally, I fall into both of the latter 2 categories.
@@doujinflip It is important to note that the main reason housing is the main investment for Chinese citizens is because their government constantly intervenes in their stock exchange which makes investing in companies very risky as opposed to housing. Additionally, the reason why housing is now starting to collapse in China is because their government has now prohibited the construction companies from taking certain loans that allowed them to finance their housing projects. I guess the Chinese people have no safe form of investing now.
The housing market is inflated and oversaturated with homes being on the market with astronomical price tags just stagnant for months. It is very clear that or generation will be likely one of the most devastating bubble pops in modern history. Seeking best possible ways to grow 250k into $1m+ and get a good house for retirement.
I don't think here is the place for personalized investment guidance. However, I suggest consulting with a reliable advisor like Azul to ensure appropriate retirement planning.
I’m closing in on retirement, and I have benefitted much from using a financial advisor. I didn’t really start early, so I knew the compound interest of index fund investing would not work for me. Funny how I pulled in over 80% profit than some of my peers who have been investing for many years. Maybe you should consider this too
Thanks for sharing. I curiously searched for her full name and her website popped up immediately. I looked through her credentials and did my due diligence before contacting her.
This is why you push houses to the assessed tax value. The only reason housing prices went so high is due to the 30-year mortgage and investments pressuring higher resell due to these. Putting it back to assessed value fixes that. Houses should only be assessed on their value, not "investment potential".
Exactly what we Antinatalists have said. If government won't make the law, the rules, the economy perfectly fair, then why should anyone breed? Government has no right to complain that nobody wants to have kids anymore.
Henry George was also in favor of taxing all types of natural resources. Alaska has been doing a UBI since 1982. It is funded by charging oil companies fees to extract oil from their land. We shouldn't let corporations be extracting and excluding natural resources for free, they should be paying for value that the citizens are entitled to! Divvy up the revenues into a citizen's dividend and pay people for being a part of a country that generates economic value.
The only people entitled to the profits from natural wealth extraction are those who contributed to in sone way to the extraction. The land belongs to whoever ownd tge deed to the land not the entirety of the the state or nation.
Don't they pay for permits, consultants for compliance, and often remediations. I work in environmental protection, and you'd be surprised how much these companies pay to stay compliant.
Yeah, it's a real struggle. With the rising housing prices and stagnant wages, it's becoming increasingly difficult for many to afford homes, let alone save for retirement
And with the fear of not being able to retire comfortably, people might be tempted to make risky investments or neglect proper financial planning, which could spell trouble for their portfolios in the long run
It's a vicious cycle. If people can't afford homes, they might delay retirement savings, but if they focus solely on saving for this. Economic instability, inflation, and market fluctuations can further complicate matters and add to people's financial worries
It's crucial for individuals to diversify their portfolios, seek professional financial advice, and stay informed about market trends to navigate these challenges effectively
A couple of options: 1. Restrict corportate ownerrship of homes. 2. Add additional tax for 2nd, 3rd homes and so forth. This is a cooling measure by HK. There, you get double tax if you're buying the second home. It doesn't have to be as severe. 3. Restrict frequent buying/selling. In taiwan, you wilk receive a penalty for selling a house you just bought within 2 years. This discourages speculative buying, and selling. 4. Build better infrastructure. Any other ideas?
The government subsidized small houses or apartment complexes for the working class. Worked like a charm in my country because the people respect the chance and the building, and with good public transportation
@@literallyhuman5990 It can work well, the HDB complexes were a good reference from Singapore. It could create a sandwich effect though. A lot of people can afford neither public housing nor private housing. But it can be executed to great effect in America.
These are just measures to thwart demand from certain people in favor of other people. The cure for high prices is high prices only if supply is allowed to meet demand. Consumer electronics are cheap but they use to be expensive. Why? Because profits were to be had by mass production. Companies produced as much as long as it’s profitable and when the market is saturated, we have plenty and it’s very affordable. The same thing can easily happen in housing if allowed. Those that buy second, third homes. Foreign buyers, investors, and company’s can actually fuel a building frenzy. If supply was allowed to meet all that demand that would mean more housing. Eventually, so much housing would be built that it becomes a losing investment, prices start to fall, the market is flooded with cheap housing. which is good for renters and later buyers. This happened in Houston during the 1980s. They overbuilt so much that rents were cheap for a long long time.
-Houses are affordable in places like Vienna and to a lesser extent Singapore (at least for renting). It hasn't wrecked the economy in any way. -If people spend less on renting or mortgages, that's discretionary income which can be injected into consumption and other economic activity. -Affordable housing will also have a boosting effect on the likelihood of young adults to marry, have children etc. That too is beneficial to the economy. Really property developers and landlords are the only segment of "the economy" benefiting from expensive housing.
Yeah. The main difference is that they constantly build high rise condos and apartments instead of single family homes. They have better zoning laws which allow this and less building regulations that are useless (dont influence health/saftey). Allat can easily fixed by fixing city zoning laws, Ignoring NIMBYs, and getting rud of honestly unnecessay building regulations
I think it's time to make it more appealing for potential buyers. Real estate can be quite the rollercoaster! the stress and uncertainty are getting to me. I think I'll cut rents to attract potential buyers and exit the market, but i'm at crossroads if to allocate the entire $680k liquidity value to my stock portfolio?
Overall, buyers hold a lot of the cards right now, and sellers are having to give out more concessions to close a deal." All the best, buying on sale is actually one of the best ways to invest in stocks, and advisors are ideally suited for such task
Until the Fed clamps down even further I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now with financial markets will be best you seek a fin-professional with fiduciary responsibilities who knows about mortgage-backed securities for proper guidance.
Sharon Ann Meny is the licensed coach I use. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I appreciate it. After searching her name online and reviewing her credentials, I'm quite impressed. I've contacted her as I could use all the help I can get. A call has been scheduled.
The basis of the housing market being the "backbone" of an economy, relies on not supplying enough housing for economically active citizens over the actual GDP that citizens could offer if they were sufficiently housed. You don't need to give these things for free, but if a citizen has a home, clean water and heating, the rest will practically fall into place. And the leveraging and reliance on the housing market will, with no doubt, induce severe fluctuations in that market from time to time. It becomes a stock that people sell off in large volumes that affect the overall market value and negatively impact those without the option to buy and sell on an annual basis.
"relies on not supplying enough housing" what you yapping China had the housing market as backbone and an oversupply of housing. How's other people buying and selling houses affecting you? As long as you pay the mortgage, the bank won't want to foreclose on you.
@@nietur different underlying problem. China was essentially a speculative bubble Vs western countries where house prices are structurally high. China also has a very savings focussed culture but domestic banks and stock market aren't trusted by the public forcing everyone into real estate
"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." - Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI "Of the Rent of Land"
Not sure that's all that applicable today with modern transportation. My father is a farmer and owns about half the land he farms. And if offered, there's zero chance he would agree to buy more farmland from his landlords, even though he could easily afford it.
This right here is the crux of the issue. For decades the housing market has only been driven by how much people can borrow. People's budget is whatever the bank will give them, and housing prices are whatever at least some people can pay.
I've been watching the housing market closely, Prices have been skyrocketing for years. It's going to be tough for first-time buyers to enter the market." how can one diversify $280k reserve .
I agree, It's not just the prices, but also the increasing interest rates that are making it more difficult for people to afford homes. With a good FA you can make up your portfolio.
The housing market has always had its ups and downs, but it's true that this time feels different. Having a portfolio manager will save you a lot in the market , My portfolio currently has 200% increase last couple of months with the help of my advisor.
in times like these, it's crucial to be cautious and not rush into the market , Who is this your FA , my portfolio needs urgent attention , been a lot of lose.
Annette Christine Conte is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment...
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since l need all the assistance l can get. I just scheduled a caII.
In Brazil we have been building new neighborhoods with simple houses for the poor for over a decade now. You need to be in the lower income ranges to be eligible for purchasing them and sometimes they are just given to these families. There are a bunch of conditions so that middle class and rich guys don't buy them. This has helped with the issue of poor people not having where to live or being subject to bad rents. It's imperfect, but works well enough
@@prettyboyjeremy Not so much "Go away" as "your neighborhood is over there. Go back out to the main road, turn left, drive about five miles, and you'll see it on the right. Enjoy".
@@prettyboyjeremy It is pretty much that, a whole neighborhood filled with low skill workers. Most of the time it just devolves into a slum and crime usually concentrates there... Did someone stole your car? Its probably being dissembled in the poor neighborhood. After a while it falls into deep disrepair and its hardly any different from invasion construction. There is also a trend where after a while the drug lord gets most of the land as payment for drug debt. But yay communism and free stuff.
I work in real estate but with a mission to make housing affordable through new processes techniques, materials and volume. It’s a hard industry to make an impact in. I network with other real estate professionals and unfortunately you have a lot of those who don’t care about affordability and only about making money. Any talk of lowing home prices and they recoil with distain. It’s an industry wide issue and it’s hard to solve for without the government taking a stand. We have forgotten what housing is for and turned it into a commodity.
It's the opposite, housing was seen as a commodity before, which is why prices were more reasonable. But now, its an investment vehicle, therefore they want the value to keep rising. Genuine question though, do you think the real estate sector even wants affordable homes? Don't they benefit more financially as long as housing appreciates in value?
If "housing" is becoming a luxury investment, then maybe we need a new classification of commodity that is not considered an investment Affordable homes could be called "basic dignified shelter" which would fill the need for starter homes and keep them OUT of investor pockets! 😡
The economy would BOOM if everyone had a paid off house. So much extra disposable income would flood the stock market and retailers. It would be a boom like you have never seen before.
You didn't mention the PRIMARY reason it makes homeownership attainable. The land value tax is a holding cost for property. This reduces the price of the property, the same way any asset is going to sell for less if it has a tax on it. This turns the land cost from being upfront to being recurring, removing a huge part of the hurdle in acquiring your first home. AND! Property values come from two parts - the land and the building. The land appreciates, but the building depreciates. Attaching a tax burden to the land value pretty much instantly kills the financiaization and speculative economics around housing.
I work in RE. I think another solution that gets massively looked over is rewarding people for rehabbing more. There's so many dilapidated houses all over America that are just going to sit there and rot because it's impossible make any money rehabbing and then selling them. There needs to be some kind of incentive. I can think of at least 5 properties in my immediate area that have been just wasting away for the past 20+ years. Not only would this give people more housing but it would also clean up our aesthetics.
The cool thing about land value taxation is it doesn't charge you more for adding more value in construction... You can add so much more value and just pay the same amount of tax on the land.
If a house is vacant for too long, it can deteriorate in such fundamental ways that it can become impossible to restore, it has to be torn down. It depends on the climate and the construction of course.
@@pappaflammyboi5799 Yes for many. Yet we created the mess over many decades of redlining/white-flight taking wealth and realtors lower and lowering values. Since the FDR era of FHA loans.... their redlining maps prevented FHA low-interest government guaranteeing bank loans. Told banks not to loan in them areas. Even post WW2 GI loans were not going there as less than 2% went to minorities especially in them areas. Add lost industry and industry that could hire only ethnic groups who founded them. My first full time job was in such a place late 70s. Forced to quota hire minorities.... It for decades only hired Italians and Greeks. I was merely gotten in by Union worker there got me in as the only that period white hire. They eventually moved to the suburbs than China. Early 80s deep recession I lost that good job for a young person. The old plant still stands as their corporate HQ's and museum of all their products they ever made. Now if these areas are in proximity to following Gentrification or that cities core or CBD as some have more than one. If still were quality built and with architectural features people like.... it does get saved. Some cities as a Houston like their inner-loop around their core. Those small homes on large lots on blocks basically are just bought out and leveled. A Chicago has lots of old quality housing even in those areas that if it could grow more would surely today have more saved. Best of it generally does and rented in hopes of some bonanza in the future that at this time is not coming quick. Many of these cities built quality homes built to last full basements etc. To save all these homes should be a policy worth utilizing with infill that can eventually come. They do need people with means to purchase and afford to pay by all the upgrades done. Those already there without large gov subsidies generally never will. So it would take a whole new clientele to move in and that is what Gentrification basically is. Thank God this and other cities maintained solid quality housing in neighborhoods that did not decline or severely at all. Quality homes 100 yrs old is a testament to quality that came from required levels of it of builders and zoning did. Giving guidelines ALL had to abide to created that quality housing when some areas left anything you could build get built and even if it lasted .... was not seen as good enough to save today and would not take open-floor plans we want etc.
People will have to accept reality that we won't ever return to 3%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. I now look towards the stock market to fuel my millionaire goal. Sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
I like both. But in my experience, most of the millionaires that I know have gained their wealth through diversified investments and they all had a sort of advisor helping out with informed decisions.
@arlenehill4ril real estate prices exploded, interest rates exploded, but my wage the same, i'm screwed! who is your advisor please, if you dont mind me asking? in dire need of proper asset allocation
Sweden did something with the Million Programme. Japan didn't build stuff directly, but has very relaxed zoning laws, and Tokyo has the cheapest housing prices of any global city.
Actually, we should want them to do less, and demand a downsize. But you can't catch that from this video, which seems to largely assume that government is doing the right things in the right ways and... they don't need a haircut - just a tweak of tax methods. I'm calling bullshit on that. A pension farm has been erected to vote for itself, and its consuming the nation just like termites tear down a house: one bite at a time.
None of this was a problem in the US until the 90s when the Boomers all surpassed the average first home buyer age. In another couple decades once that generation has lost political power the government can start functioning again.
We all know that's not going to work. You could find an area to build high density housing. Heck, maybe you could throw in a few shops and a wal mart that's in a walkable distance. Dosent change the fact that every other place of interest isn't walkable. People living in these high density areas will still need to drive to get to their jobs and do other things. There is no room for trains in most areas. Buses would take longer than a private car. If you have a 20 minute trip by car and you want to convert that into a bus trip, in what world does the whole process of waiting for a bus go faster? And highly unlikely the bus is going to park you off in a walkable distance from said job or even if there will be a side walk for you to walk on. Plus you should be aware of how fast we would find the public transportation nasty and unpleasant. This isn't Japan. After a bit you will feel nasty and unsafe on such buses like most people do. I've been to a few areas of the country that has decent public transportation by the average standard. I was in awe, but all the locals said how unsafe and nasty it was. They lived in a walkable distance from it all too and still chose private car. Just forget about public transportation and focus on housing.
@@baronvonjo1929 It's all a system that works together. When built properly making walking, biking and Transit faster than a personal car. Car dependency is expensive for the home owner (car note, fuel, parking, focus time while traveling, insurance, maintenance, it's a depreciating) and the government to maintain the infrastructure. Walkable bikeable neighborhoods with fast frequent Transit. Prioritize other modes a transportation besides the car to make efficient neighborhoods. This makes driving faster for people who choose to drive because there are less cars on the road because they are taking Transit or walking or biking. This makes it faster for police and fire fighters and EMS to get to their destinations. You can walk or bike to a bus or train station and while you're on the bus or the train, you can sleep, listen to music, read, do some homework or work. Buses and train have their own right-of-way so they don't have to deal with all the car traffic with only one person in that car. You can build elevated or underground trains and they require less maintenance because it's a metal wheel on a metal track rather than an asphalt highway with rubber tires. More friction and tear down happens with driving on asphalts rather than taking the train so less maintenance has to be done Suburban sprawl requires more highway miles and more highway maintenance because people live way further from from work and fun work. efficient neighborhoods are better Trains and buses are what you make them. The United States does not give them enough money to make them great. Not all buses are dirty, that's just a stereotype We only prioritize the car in the United States. That's why people have the notion that Transit is slower. If you build efficient Transit, it will be much faster and comfortable for the driver. And of course it is safer because there are millions of car accidents each year. Of course they will always be rooms somewhere for single family homes, but that lifestyle is super expensive for the homeowner and the government to maintain
@@baronvonjo1929 It all works together as a system. When done correctly it is fastly better than the norm. Car dependency is expensive for the homeowner (car note, fuel, insurance, maintenance, parking, time taking from you by actively driving, depreciation ) and the government to maintain (highways break down faster because there are more friction. It's asphalt surface with rubber tires. Tearing it up constantly. Trains are metal wheels on metal tracks so there's less friction ideally requiring less maintenance) (You can move more people with a train track set going in both direction compared to an eight-lane highway) We need to build neighborhoods where you can walk or bike to work or walk or bike to a bus or train station. On the bus or train people can sleep, do work, do homework, or read. Rather than being stressed stunk actively driving in traffic Trains can be elevated or underground. We need to build dedicated lanes for buses so they don't have to compete with the same traffic. This is what slows it down. You check your transit app for when the next bus comes so you only arrive at the bus or train station with a few minutes to spare so you're not wasting time. Public transportation gets a bad rep in the United States because we do not invest the money into it to make it actually great. All we care about is highways. I use Transit all around the world and it is so efficient and great Car dependency and urban sprawl is expensive because housing is further away from jobs, entertainment, and resources. This requires more material to build and maintain. If everyone wants so much space then you have to keep pushing suburbs further and further away from the core City requiring more maintenance for the government. Building efficient cities around walking, biking and Transit will make traffic flow faster for people who choose to drive and emergency vehicles.
That won't fix anything. That creates the capability of wealth inequality based on regional neighborhoods -- People that "can afford" that, then move there, while people that can't, are divided into neighborhoods without. The Low Density housing isn't rural, it's inner-city; Which are duplexes. All the urbanist movement is to do, is to create rural, small town living inside of sectional urban sprawl inner-city neighborhoods, subdividing "housing" from "complex & business district". In turn, that'll generate heavy profit for larger corporate owners, and provide incentive to increase costs to provide living for specified class individuals capable of living there (notice no one states public option housing, with no tax and maintained via city with competition of private industry to regulate it). A solution is to stop building private apartment rentals, force previous single-family (now duplexes and multi-family units) that are inner-city back into single-family owner-occupird units, force all housing costs to be equal to assessed property tax value, and remove anything above a 15-year mortgage. Of course that'll collapse some banks, and we don't bail them out this time. We let "the free market" (lol) fix their failure of attempted exploitation, rather that provide them do-overs for exploiting people and collapsing the economy. And you can't do any of that without: 1) Wealth tax above $1m (not even income, wealth tax per year; Control inflation) 2) Removing money from politics 3) Regulating Capitalism (getting rid of neoliberalism). The problem with urbanists, is that they never lived in an urban city. They lived in rural small towns, or gated communities, and want these areas to be "like a city" but also rural. And none of that touches on the problems of relocation and job advancements or career changes. How on Earth can we pretend that you will "always" live within 15 minutes of work? I'm 35 years old, I started my working career in retail like 25 years ago, before that a musician. During which I worked as a cashier, then later a mechanic, then later call center, then later help desk, and now I work in application implementation. I literally can never say I worked within 15 minutes of my house, despite walking 3 minutes to an entire complex of numerous stores. I can walk to get my groceries, as I walked to the first place I worked. Life advancements must occur. It's a dream by wealthy people that they can "work 15 minutes from home" -- Of course, cause their career is TH-cam and their generation wealth purchased a €5,500 condo in Amsterdam, when the average American can't afford $1,000 for an apartment without roommates. (I own a house, but the point remains that this isn't about me, my house was a condemned house I spent weekends remodeling a couple years back). Urbanist TH-camrs are larpers most of the time. Talk to any dude living in poverty and they'll straight up say "are you crazy, I don't want to walk to work forever, been doing it for half my life, why would I want that forever". That's not fixing a problem. That creates classism, generates a greater divide than we already have. It's not a solution, it's the natural progression of the current system; privatized housing where the rich nepos live in subsidized housing, and the poor live in poverty.
@baronvonjo1929 you really can't ignore the transportation aspect of housing. Especially in large cities where congestion is obnoxious and parking is sparce or costly. Complain about public transit all you want, but it's adaptation and expansion is inevitable for any municipality that has to prioritize housing and people over roads and cars.
It is difficult to make exact projections for the housing market as it is still unclear how quickly or to what degree the Federal Reserve will reduce inflation and borrowing costs without having a substantial negative impact on demand from consumers for anything from houses to cars.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone wants to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage rules are getting more difficult, and home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes. For now, get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. If you are at a cross roads or need honest advice on the best moves to take now, it is best to seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
'Jessica Lee Horst' is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
Where i live (Silicon Valley, USA) many houses are bought by foreigners as investment properties. A lot of those investment properties sit vacant for years at a time. They see these “investments” as a safe place to put their money because USA’s housing market is pretty stable. Also, I know people personally thought got lucky and bought a house when they were cheap or were given a house by their parent/grandparent. It’s sad that many young families can’t afford a cozy place they can call their home. Instead, most have to live in small over priced apartments and deal with stingy landlords that raise the rent price on you every damn year. Thanks America, turning everything into a fuckin investment 🫡Don’t even get me started with healthcare here in the USA…!
Landlords raise the rent every damn year because their expenses go up every damn year. Being a landlord is a business, not a charity. Like any other business, when expenses go up, so do prices.
@@TVluver2true, but they have also got very greedy. I can understand slight increases… but the last couple of years have been absurd. My rent went up by $300 dollars three years in a row, and when I asked why, they responded with “well it’s just market pricing around the area”. What’s happening is they are using software that calculates the maximum they should charge for rent, and when they all use it, all of the housing goes up and it’s totally artificial.
@@ROVA00 All business charge what the market will pay. I don't think we can expect housing to be any different. It is a business, afterall. I also think you can thank the government for at least some of the increases. Tenant protection laws have made it insanely time-consuming and expensive to evict someone and, with Covid, the government proved they can force landlords to turn their rentals into "free shelters" anytime an emergency is declared. A landlord has to charge more to save up to cover the losses on tenants that don't pay and to prepare for the next potential moratorium. Also, the constant threat of new rent controls means a landlord has to raise the rent as much as they can when they can because new laws may prevent them from raising it later. Once they get behind market value, they may never be allowed to catch up. All that being said, expenses have gone up drastically for landlords in the past several years and I think this is the main reason for the large rent increases. In many states (perhaps most), property taxes go up with home values, so with home values going up so quickly, property taxes have skyrocketed. Insurance costs are also skyrocketing in many areas. Where I live (northern California), insurance rates are doubling and tripling each year. Of course these costs are going to be passed on to the tenants. Being a landlord has become very risky and the rents reflect that risk. I got out of the long-term rental game because the risks and hassles became too much. I converted my 3 rentals to Airbnbs. So much easier to manage, less risk, and more profit. I think as more and more smaller landlords exit the business due to the risks and hassles caused by overbearing tenant protection laws, things are only going to get worse for tenants.
More supply = more housing and not oversized houses far from each other requiring full highway to get anywhere. Build 3-5 story appartment buildings with big yard, walking road going between them and bus/tram/train/metro station within hundreds of meters at most. If nimbys complain there might be houses that aren't macmansions and people that can't afford those somewhere where the nimby might see them, well there is space for the nimby under the buss.
@@harveypolanski755By forcing everyone else to not be able to build using the violent power of the state? Like you realize how selfish that is? It like saying you can't start another business next to mine because you will decrease my profits.
It's perfectly reasonable to protect your largest asset. It's also a shitty thing to do. The system we live in rewards doing shitty things, making them reasonable, but still shitty.
Problem is zoning across the country don’t allow for any apartment or duplex/multiplex home construction. When all you are allowed to build is large single family homes of course that’s gonna be the only thing available.
POV: You graduated college a year ago and decided (*forced to really) to temporarily live with your parents until you find a job. You hope to find a job with your new expensive degree that put you thousands of dollars in debt but can only find jobs that require a high school diploma. You save as much as you possibly can but you get rear ended and pushed into a Bentley and have to pay for the damage on top of the minimum payment for the pointless degree. Although you are incredibly grateful you aren’t homeless, you are also going a little crazy living with your parents especially after having your independence for four years. You can’t wait to move out and you stumble across this video, a symbol of hope, only to find out the policies that would help your situation would never pass because the ultra wealthy 1% would never fund the campaign of any one that would make them lose money. (Edit: This was just a hypothetical scenario.. I have spoken to people struggling in this regard, but I do hvac and I’m big chillin😎.. prayers for the people struggling in these situations)
If you can't find a job with your college degree, then perhaps you chose a useless major like liberal arts or music theory. I know in my industry (accounting), companies are fighting each other to hire both fresh out of college newbies and experienced personnel. I've heard from friends in other industries that they are seeing the same thing in their companies...a severe lack of qualified job candidates. As for the minimum payment on your degree, the federal student loan program offers income-based repayment plans so their will be no payment if you don't have a job and even when you get a job, the payment will only be 5% of your disposal income. Blaming whatever financial woes you have on student loan payments is just an excuse.
@@TVluver2your all in the comments trying to attack the middle and poor classes. Guess what buddy you are closer to those groups than the 1% please hop off their d.
@@TVluver2 its not a major by major thing. americans all across the country from different majors are struggling to find jobs. and student loan debts affect millions of americans so how can it be an "excuse". sounds to me that you're just privileged and miserable.
@@TVluver2 while some degrees aren't as valuable as others, the economy isn't doing nearly as well as you think. As a recent grad, I know plenty of accomplished people with stem degrees that are struggling to find a decent paying job in their industry. We can't all be accountants, and someone has to produce the media and entertainment you consume daily (it's not finance bros)
There have been two "once-in-a-generation" economic depressions before I even turned 25. The price of a home inflated nearly 5x-6x from the time I was born to the current day. Clearly the system itself is the issue and needs to go.
this is the heart of the neoliberals: proud endorsement of progressive social values - but complete refusal to see those values enacted if it *might* cause them any inconvenience of any sort
What i want people to understand if there isn't enough apartments, they'll turn a house into the most inefficient apartment of all time, they'll subdivide that shit, which sucks for everyone, urban professionals have to live farther from the cities, and families become priced out of single family homes because supply is down
this is a really strong point - it's also a prominent problem in the US especially due to draconian housing regulations and NIMBYs stopping the development of anything other than single family homes that no one can afford anyhow
Nothing new but that happen in the past. you just fail to understand the home your parents and great parents had didn't have much development around it at the time.
Apartments are superior for society anyway. Poorer inner city taxpayers literally subsidize suburbs, which use resources extremely inefficiently. A partial solution to the housing situation is to finally make home owners in suburbs pay their fair show. Properly increasing property tax on suburbia would result in a larger ratio of apartments to single family homes. More housing units
1:30 In 2023, we had a similar program in Poland. While in 2022, apartment prices stabilized, thanks to the government program in 2023 prices in the largest cities increased by over 20%. Now people are protesting against the introduction of a similar program by the new government.
Yeah, nothing better than printing money and putting it into a lot of mortgages, what can go wrong. And the program of building communal flats was basically abandoned...
Then here in Ontario, Canada, the conservative provincial government eliminated rent control from buildings made available after November 2018. Predictably, rent exploded and supply did not actually increase.
the first step to acquire wealth is figuring-out your goals with heIp of a financiaI pIanner, and foIIowing through with lnteIIigent ideas; you will acquire wealth in no time and also enjoy the decision of managing your money.
A middle ground I found out about that I honestly like is to hike up property taxes on speculative real estate. If the property isn't actively on the market or being activelly used then the taxes owed double on an year-by-year basis. This would prevent speculative strategies like buying up a lot of homes but renting out only a small portion of them. Or listing them for prices nobody is willing to buy them at. There's also the very big issues of commercial real estate, especially offices. A lot of those buildings are either owned by higher ups of the company to extract profits as rent payments. Or by the companies to add asset value to their balance sheet. With WFM being an attractive cost saving options for competitors those offices are going to lose a lot of value in the eyes of institutions because it's paper-only.
Lets not have the government manage our investments with absurd tax policies. Lets just have fair and simple taxes, and have the government leave us alone otherwise. Once you start down the dark micromanage path, you will see that the first idea didn't work, then the knives come out, and this stuff gets insanely complicated, creating tons of new loopholes, and unexpected outcomes that are not what you want, as everyone just repositions their stuff to avoid all the unjust high taxes.
I prefer a vacancy tax as well as sales taxes or consumption taxes to replace property taxes and income taxes. No need to tax people on income and property when there are fewer and fewer people owning property or making income.
@@HowMoneyWorks I personally like Hoser, Plainbagel and HMW for my economics news and Task & purpose, Caspian report and Laserpig for my Geopolitical news.
I moved from Tampa to Santa Clara a few months ago and I’m thinking of purchasing a single family home there, but with real estate prices currently through the roof, is it still a good idea to buy a home or should I invest in stocks for now and just wait for a housing market correction? Looks like NVDA, TSM and AMD and AVGO are strong buys this week.
well you could put a downpayment on a home and as well diversify as much as you can into Ai, energy and big pharm. stocks like Pfizer and JnJ, ASML, MLM and S&P 500 ETFs. I’d suggest you go with a managed portfolio, but even those don’t perform so well, so it’s best you reach out to a proper fiduciary to guide you, that’s what works for my spouse and I making a whooping $738k in Q4 last year
There are many advisors to choose from. But I work with 'Leah Foster Alderman' and we've been working together for years and she's fantastic. You could check her if she meets your requirements. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with
Thanks for the recommendation, I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials, I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get.
Honestly, they didn't fix their housing problems overnight. It took a lot of foresight from their leaders to get to where they are. Also, their approach to housing won't fly anywhere else in the world because the government owns all the land in that country/city.
@MasterChief0x72 from the perspective of a country it was overnight. Voters controll the direction of a society. Slap a 300% extra property tax on investment housing properties and use the income to buy the depressed properties/land build proper density if it doesn't exist and give people reasonable housing(assuming the area currently doesn't have reasonable housing). I wonder how many areas would suddenly fix thier housing crisis to not be targeted?
Singapore did not fix their housing. No person has yet completed the 99 year lease.And there are no concrete explanations yet ehat will happen when they do. Not to mention that Singapore is behind all the shine an incredibly oppressive state for anyone showing critisism to this system. Not a good example.
@RK-cj4oc a large portion of thier population was homeless or living in shacks, now they are not. "What might happen" and "government bad" don't have anything to do with the results. You middle finger locals who are fucking around and build proper density where it needs to be, it fixes the problem.
@@Josh-ks7co Yeah. Who cares what the people living their think. F*ck the peassants. Everybody knows everything should be decided by politicians without input from people who live there. The goverment wanted Singapores population to grow my mass immigration so screw anyone that wants to keep their home. The graph has to move up.
I just did some maths... in 1912 my great-great grandparents bought a 2 bed house not dissimilar to the one I currently live in (in terms of footprint, they didn't get the last of the upgrades to the indoor plumbing until the 1970's) for 1.07 years worth of my great-great grandfather's gross annual salary. My house is valued at over 4 times my current gross annual salary - add to that the fact I work in a comfortably middle class finance job and he was a skilled labourer in an era that didn't value such work and you've got to wonder where we went wrong. For anyone curious, I saw the mortgage paperwork when my great great grandmother died and they paid £132 for a mid terraced property in a North Yorkshire village - they lived in the same property their whole married life (excluding 2 wars).
And how many lived in the house? Since you said grandparents, I'm assuming it was a minimum of two; don't need to answer but are you living with someone in your home? If not, then we have the first disconnect in your example - you don't NEED the same size home that they had! That is part of the issue that doesn't get talked enough about. Big families used to squeeze into tiny homes. Now, single people right out of college think they should get a big home cause they want one.
I don't know the houses in question but I think there is some serious stretching of the not dissimilar aspect. In 1912 I'm presuming no electricity, by your account it's got limited to no plumbing, the heat is likely a coal stove, minimal insulation. These things are hella expensive. If it's just a structure, there are 2br prefab structures available for under 40k. Log cabin kits likewise are frequently under a moderate annual salary. From that standpoint, it's likely easy to get a comparable house for a comparable amount. It's when we look at modern amenities (electrical, plumbing, climate control, insulating, siding) along with 21st century space desires that costs suddenly really start to increase. Again, dunno the buildings, and I'm American so further removed, but it's very fraught making direct comparisons to housing from 100 years ago.
Because so many people overpaid for homes even while loan rates were low, I believe there will be a housing catastrophe because these people are in debt. If housing costs continue to drop and, for whatever reason, they can no longer afford the property and it goes into foreclosure, they have no equity since, even if they try to sell, they will not make any money. I believe that many individuals will experience this, especially given the impending mass layoffs and rapidly rising living expenses.
I advise you to invest in stocks to balance out your real estate, Even the worst recessions offer wonderful buying opportunities in the markets if you're cautious. Volatility can also result in excellent short-term buy and sell opportunities. This is not financial advice, but buy now because cash is definitely not king right now!
You're correct! With the help of an investment coach, I was able to diversify my 450K portfolio across markets and produce slightly more than $830K in net profit from high dividend yield equities, ETFs, and bonds.
My portfolio has been in the gutter for the entire year, so I started researching new ways to profit in the market, but everything I tried just seemed to miss the mark. Please let us know the name of your financial advisor?
‘’Aileen Gertrude Tippy’’ is her name. She is regarded as a genius in her area and works for Empower Financial Services. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
The problem with the Georgist system is that there is not any check on raising the "land tax" to such a point that it becomes confiscation of built property other than people investing effort to fight the assessment. The amount of effort that they will invest is proportional to their value of their entire property, so the Georgist system would evolve to just being a property tax.
Thats a slippery slope argument. Bc we make A sure we are going to make B. There is no reason the think this would happen, why isnt income tax 90%? Bc if we already have it whats stopping the gov to put it at 90%? Its the exact same argument youre doing and as you can see it hasnt happened
@@thetapheonix so, how do you explain income taxes nit being 100%? Bc its exactly the same "domino effect" that has been falling for 300y and it still hasnt happened
Canada just announced that, to "support first time buyers," theyre going to increase the limit on insurable mortgages and allow 30 year mortgages for new homes or first time buyers. Their solution to make the market "more accessible" is to increase the price you can charge without a proper down payment and make the term longer. Their method to get more people in the market is just to allow people to incur even more debt than before.
this is not a problem of lack... its a market manipulation. there are plenty of places to live, theyre for sale or for rent and they are empty because a private company is setting rates with an algorithm and theyve influenced over 50% of the market, they cornered the market on house pricing so they could get their cut without doing the deal!
The thing with the land tax is that if you don't subscribe to Georgism and just want the "f your investment" effect, all you need to do is make family homes tax free. Basically, if you own a single home you don't have to pay the land tax on it. But you must pay an increasing rate on subsequent land you buy or land used for comercial endeavors. Also, removing restrictions on what kind of houses can be built where will incentivize people to make more building and multi-familiy homes that will increase supply.
Zoning reform , a national ban on single family only zoning and mandatory lawns (allow people to build rentals on lawns) introduce employment conscription for the unemployed (if a war breaks out especially either draft , build homes or find a job) there are way too many restrictions
@@doujinflip I would go even farther than that. Outlaw anyone buying a single family home unless they are going to occupy it for at least two years, and limit home purchases to one per person. There’s no reason for anyone to own more than one house except to fleece others.
So Georgism would solve the unaffordability of buying a house by actively punishing people who try to buy land for non-income-generating purposes like living, and promoting literally any other building project except for houses?
We already do this with property taxes, they just don't make as much sense economically or ethically. There's nothing that says people have to pay more in net taxes, you just balance the numbers so that the average homeowner isn't really affected but the guy who owns a bunch of derelict lots around town is screwed (actually he's not screwed, he can just sell)
Georgism makes housing more affordable because it encourages efficient use of land, and therefore has the potential to drastically increase supply of housing units. Unfortunately zoning laws would continue to make housing unaffordable by artificially restricting supply. The core of Georgism is to capture wealth created by the community and return it to the community rather than allowing it to be privatized by land speculators, and also to reduce the burden or even eliminate all other taxes i.e. the socialization of privately created wealth through payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes etc... Georgism also has the bonus of increasing wages and dampening the effect of severe boom-bust cycles. Land speculation can be tied to economic hardship. If you want to learn more you can read Progress and Poverty by Henry George. I know there are free PDFs of the book available online.
The idea is to punish people who buy lots of land and do nothing with it. If instead of property taxes and national taxes, you paid a single land tax of roughly the same amount, you wouldn't even know. Meanwhile the corporation buying up a ton of vacant lots and waiting for their value to go up gets bled dry.
Yea, maximally economically efficient use of land craps on things like parks, playgrounds, sports, preserves, green space, etc...Why would I want a system that encourages building up every lot for max profit?
The price of land in non-crowded areas would adjust to meet the tax. But yes, there would be a one-time discontinuity. I have a piece of rural land (purchased at essentially zero demand) that cost $65K but only carries $1K in taxes. Its tax basis would have to go down. A lot.
I think the land value tax is profound and reflects a truth about reality, the idea that we're all borrowers of the commons. I feel such a deep longing listening to this video. Such a simple idea that's aligned with truth could have such deep positive impacts. But all the forces of the powers that be oppose this idea and lie about its implications.
The whole talk about "reverse" market crash (real estate and stock market) basically argues that we are nowhere near done with inflation and that we might actually experience "hyperinflation" in the near future combined with accelerating poverty levels across the nation or going thru a historical economic depression...those are the extreme conditions that have produced the reverse market crashes in most examples I've seen. I personally don't see anything that extreme coming, but who knows.
Focus on two key objectives. First, stay protected by learning when to sell stocks to cut losses and capture profits. Second, prepare to profit when the market turns around.I recommend you seek the guidance a broker or financial advisor.
Stocks are pretty unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Strategists have been aiding folks in recording gains over 250k just in a matter of months, so I think there are alot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you have someone who knows where to look like i do.
Finding financial advisors like Annette Christine Conte who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
I greatly appreciate it. I'm fortunate to have come upon your message because investing greatly fascinates me. I'll look Terri Annette Moore up and send her a message. You've truly motivated me. God's blessings on you.
It’s kinda interesting because I was having a similar conversation about this, my point was, if people just agreed to not be greedy and began to sell their homes for what it’s actually worth and honest people with no intention to sell, rather just want to live there buy then 50% of this issue would be solved, the other 50% is corporations like BofA/blackrock (same company btw), and vanguard, and McDonald’s need to stop being able to buy land and homes in residence zoned areas. It’s just wrong for these corporations and people to make money off us by dangling overpriced homes over our face and teasing us to buy and if not the alternative is a used shipping container or tiny prebuilt home.
I would totally be onboard with the Georgism land tax idea if we as land owners actually had the option to build more than a single family dwelling on the land we own. It's the biggest single biggest problem in Australia, the zoning, the second being our ridiculous environmental laws(they don't stop development, they just slow it down and cost a fortune to comply with). Of course our incredibly high immigration rate is a whole other issue, but it wouldn't be if we were just allowed to build enough to meet the demand.
I think an understated advantage of the land tax is that it would align the goals of landowners and homeowners with better zoning policy. Right now, landowners and homeowners are incentivized towards NIMBYism in order to keep the supply of housing low, and landowners and developers can be pretty politically active within their community. I think if a land value tax is actually implemented, we'd see a lot of interest groups suddenly on board with better zoning instead weaponizing environmental law, historical preservation, etc.
@@IronWilliam that is certainly the case in urban areas, especially areas with lots of older people that don't want their neighbourhood to change. But there is also the issue of town and state level planners that only trickle feed land available for development. Due to the map they drew up in an office somewhere far far away and often years ago, one large property can become a housing estate while a similar large property can't, not until another ten to twenty years goes by at any rate. They do this deliberately to limit supply. By limiting it they ensure house and land prices keep increasing as demand is never met. I wouldn't be against the idea if the supply and demand was at least close, but in my area housing availability is so low that we have had people offered full time employment have to turn down the offers because they couldn't find anywhere to live in the area. Sadly town planning is often done a decade in advance, so when growth increases faster than forecast housing can't keep up. If we had a true free market then it wouldn't be an issue, but town planning holds everything back.
The reality is that a land value tax with dividend model already takes into account all the elements of fairness you would want of a land value tax system. Don’t tax people on their primary residence? That’s just an unequal subsidy on people that have their primary residence on more valuable land. Make the tax progressive? Now you’re incentivizing splitting ownership of land over members of families to decrease the ownership per person as much as possible. Why a part of me would love to sit down every citizen and read them Progress and Poverty as a bed time story, we can’t give up hope that LVT and pigouvian taxes are the only fair and just way to run an economy. I’m going to keep fighting to implement them. Thanks for doing a video on this subject!
"Don’t tax people on their primary residence?" - Primary residence is so vague it could be the size of those huge Hawaii compounds of billionaires? Are you suggesting those dont get taxed?
LVT🎉🎉🎉 Here we go boys!! The revolution will take place from behind a calculator. Progress and Povertry ought to be mandatory reading in schools. If it isn't why can't we start advertising for it everywhere? Get it into the public discussion. Because it can stand its own on it's own.
The title already left me puzzled so the video will probably blow my mind😅 Context: construction sector is a MASSIVE part of many economies. Switching from 1-2 floor suburbia to 3-5 floor one would only increase the amount of labour and materials involved in the sector, not decrease it. More jobs in construction, mining and heavy industry, more property to purchase. Idk how fixing housing for americans can do anything but grow the economy. This IS the economy. Economy at its basic is combination of what humans can do and what they want in return. The more people are involved, the higher their productivity, the bigger the economy. So yeah, I'm puzzled and hopefully the video clear that one out😅
I'm all for building higher density housing except in our area we're running into a water shortage issue. Our aquifer has enough theoretically but not if we still want our local spring fed river which is a huge part of the appeal of our town. Higher density housing means more people per acre all using water for showers, dishwashers, washing machines, drinking, etc. How does an area with more limited water supply allow for affordable housing without further straining the water supply?
@@WanderingExistence I’m typically against NIMBYs, but he has a point in this case. We don’t want to oversaturate areas incapable of sustaining large populations. You wanna do that in areas that can.
@@cryptarisprotocol1872water is dirt cheap. Most water consumption is in agriculture, which is not an urban issue. Just raise prices to cover the cost of building desalination or importing from pipelines.
What's the annual rainfall in your area? I'm off-grid on half a metre of rainfall per annum, and it's enough to run a household on what lands on my roof. An urban area should be collecting and processing all the runoff from paved surfaces like roads and footpaths too.
@@cryptarisprotocol1872 thanks and that's my point. The problem is our area is overpopulated for the amount of water needed if having a local spring fed river is still important, which I think it is. There's such a thing as "too many people" for an area to sustain which is why I asked what we should do.
Just make a tax that scales with how many properties you own. Your primary residence is tax-free after that it goes up by 30% (or whatever number) per property
@@rainyriderr1112 I've been a renter all my life. Rental companies mostly provide better and faster service and cheaper rent than private owners. I have experience with both. Housing crisis or home crisis is not limited to "home ownership crisis". Remember that
@@rainyriderr1112why? They usually give faster and better service at cheaper rate, prevent sprawling and better manage high density. I have experience with both them and private owners as a renter all my life. The problem is housing/home, not limited to "home ownership". And why would you support driving up the rent, decreasing savings and increasing the barrier to buying a home? Is it because you own a home and cannot support any policy that may prevent growth of your equity?
@@iwatchwithnoads7480 I'm a renter as well and don't see your point. Largely the issue right now is there aren't enough homes. How would my originally stated policy of flooding the market with homes for sale drive up the price and increase the barrier to entry?
mandate that every new planned community have both integrated medium and high density housing in it for middle and lower income people. It will be spooooooky for those rich people to live near the people that built their expensive homes, but it is better for society to have multiple economic strata living in close proximity. We just need a developer to take a chance and have a tiny bit of vision, maybe the single family homeowners could be part owners of the apartments in the planned communities, which would give them a financial incentive to move there in the first place.
A Land Tax would absolutely be regressive, punishing workers far more than wealthy land owners. Sure, wealthy land owners would need to find new loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but more than likely, they would just pass the cost of the Land Tax directly onto their tenants. Most working class people already only pay a small amount in income tax each year after standard deductions, and they'd still be on the hook for "silent" taxes such as medical insurance. The property tax itself would then just be one additional deterrent to working class land ownership, and it would push a majority of working people into renting, where they will likely pay just as much or more in higher rental costs than they saved from not having to pay income tax.
Rents already are charged as high as the market will bear. Attempting to pass the extra tax along is admitting to the IRS that the land is actually more valuable than what you said it's worth. Now the IRS is demanding extra back taxes and fines. Oh and if you try to get the tenant to pay you in cash, now the IRS is going to have questions on where you're getting that money since obviously, you have something to hide
@@Demopans5990 Sure, but we're still back to the old, "It takes money to make money." model. Just as many social democracies have eliminated sales tax on essential goods in order to make them less regressive, the only way to prevent a "Land Tax" from being regressive is to eliminate or significantly reduce the Land Taxes paid on properties used solely as primary residences.
What I see more likely is that land-owners would be incentivized to push zoning changes to allow business development, not rent. Why build apartments when you can build some new "hybrid-friendly" office space and charge even higher rents without the possibility of "awful, hard to evict" tenants?
The one thing people who are newer to Georgism never seem to understand is that land tax can be scalable. The government could just as easily tax people who have more than 2 houses at an exponential rate, pushing real estate investors out of the market more easily, and downturn the idea that owning multiple houses is a good thing. As capitalist as the concept is, it definitely would aid everyone but investors and encourage a pull away from low density development.
@@iller3 Land Value Tax is inherently a progressive tax. Property taxes are separate in taxing individual property, and not individual land. If property taxes did actually scale with property values, then yes, property tax would be preferential, but it’s almost never that way. The guy in the highrise almost always subsidizes the single family home dweller in every city.
I think that would be less preferable to a regular land value tax. High density housing is sometimes supplied by big investors. You don't want to punish people or businesses that have many units just because they're big
In cities and the suburbs around them, the vacancy rates are small and the supply inelastic. Demand-side subsidies will therefore just allow owners to jack up prices. Similar reasoning applies to college. It's just like how in an economy with little slack, printing more money just makes things more expensive. If there are more people in need of housing than there are houses, then you need to have more houses built to solve that problem. You can't loan-program your way out of it.
Back in the day, when I purchased my first home to live-in; that was Miami in the early 1990s, first mortgages with rates of 8 to 9% and 9% to 10% were typical. People will have to accept the possibility that we won't ever return to 3%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
I advise you to invest in stocks to balance out your real estate, Even the worst recessions offer wonderful buying opportunities in the markets if you're cautious. Volatility can also result in excellent short-term buy and sell opportunities. This is not financial advice, but buy now because cash is definitely not king right now!
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone want to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
I found her page by searching for her entire name online. After that, I emailed her and we set up a meeting so we could talk; I'm currently waiting on her response.
I plan to retire at 62 in another country outside the US that is free, safe and very cheap with a high quality of life. I could fully just rely on only my SS if I wanted to when that times arrives but I'll also have at least one pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific lnvestment account with my Abby Joseph Cohen my FA. Retiring comfortably in the US these days is almost impossible. I honestly don't understand why people don't move to another country when they get older in retirement. It seems everybody has excuses for almost anything to not take action to better their situation.
Been debt free for two years thanks to Abby Joseph Cohen Services. So sad to see my friends in their 40s with car loans, mortgages and credit card debt.
Abby Joseph Cohen Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
A big issue with Georgist undeveloped land taxation is it just incentivizes sprawl. It would definitely prompt people to sell off undeveloped Land and more homes could built but this is by no means a silver bullet to the housing issue.
it really depends on the tax structure. taxes don't have to be exactly proportional to the thing being taxed. the standard deduction means that your effective tax rate is 0% even if you made $10,000. we can do the same thing to exempt lower value greenfields and keep them undeveloped. the main benefit of georgism is no matter how you structure it, it will likely result in development of high value land near urban centers that have a major housing shortage.
Yes, real median household income has increased nearly 18% in just the past 10 years. A greater percentage of people under the age of 35 are homeowners today than they were 30 years ago. Prices wouldn't be going up if people couldn't afford them. Even corporations buying as investments couldn't make money if people couldn't afford the rent.
The land value tax, as described at 7:42, would be horrible for people like me, who want a whole lot of privately owned land all over the country to remain undeveloped, to provide habitat for native wildlife. Mammals, insects, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc., all do much better when land is left in a natural state. Any policy that incentivises landowners to develop their property hurts wildlife. We need to get our priorities straight so that these atrocities are not committed against nature.
@@dennisthemenace2341 I don't understand your question, or how it relates to what I wrote. Can you please reword your question, so that I can understand what it is that you are asking me?
Fun fact: If you look at the average price of a home in value of gold, interestingly it really hadn't increased much from 1971 since the US dollar left the gold standard. That means the US dollar inflation has been out of control since then. If we made the US dollar a representative currency again instead of fiat, we could reestablish that stability. Although, many like Ron Paul have suggested that the representative standard should be based off a diverse portfolio of scarce assets instead of just gold to avoid an economic crash should, for example, a large new source of gold be found (like asteroid mining or something) which dramatically reduces the value of gold.
All of these people saying they don’t want housing as asset don’t understand that the value of homes is one of the reasons why Americans have a lot of wealth especially elderly people
That "wealth" isn't liquid though, so in order for it to be utilized requires the owner to sell their home or use it as collateral to take on debt. The best part about owning a home is simply having a place to live that isn't constantly sucking your away your liquid wealth away in the form of a mortgage or rent payment. And even then homeowners still have to pay taxes and insurance. Only those who have weaseled their way into a confortable position of parasitic "passive income" can have the luxury of simply occupying a comfortable living space without the constant elrisk of becoming homeless if they don't perpetually pay tribute to some entity or another.
The problem with building more houses is that increasing supply would cause wealthy homeowners to not have their homes' equity increase as much as it will if no new houses are built. If I own a $900,000 home, I want it to be worth $1.8 million in 7 years, not just $1.2 or $1.3 million.
The first thing we need to get rid of are the tax breaks on capital gains when selling a home. If anything we should increase the taxes on gains so that home owners have less of an advantage compared to new buyers
@@Technotranceism That's fine. I don't like this argument that owners need to sell, if they sell they are also out buying. The supply/Demand cancel out. The point is property owners have an advantage over non-owners. This is also how you remove it from being an investment. If people make less money off of appreciation then they won't buy it just to make money. Homes are shelter, not investments
@@EddieChamo they're always an investment. It's just a investment you can live in. Some people buy and sell, so that they can eventually afford a much higher price home. If you can make $10k-$50k or more, off of every home you buy and sell, just think about what you can afford with the initial investment money you started with. Let's use an example $200k. This isn't for everyone, but you get the idea. Those who buy them at the inflated cost, is what helps drive the cost up for others.
@@Technotranceism I'm saying it SHOULDN'T be that way. People NEED houses to live, but look where we are. Homes are too expensive for new homeowners to buy them. There's also one major thing you're missing, it doesn't even help home owners because ALL homes go up in price. So if your house doubles in price, then so does the home you were going to buy. So let's say you buy a home and it's 200k, then goes up to 400k. Then you buy a house that's 500k, BUT what you're missing is that house USED to cost 250k. So in reality, you would have saved 50k. In fact you lose way more because of all the commission fees and whatnot. Oh and of course let's not forget that your property taxes will be higher. If we create a system where homes don't go up but stay the same (with inflation at least) then everyone will actually save more money, owners and new buyers
Density doesn't equal affordability. The problem is that a lot of people want to live in the same place. That is why NYC is very un- affordable even though it is very dense. The phenomenon is called induced demand where an increase in the supply of a good or service leads to an increase in its consumption. That is especially true now when mega corporations like Blackrock are buying homes left and right. Cost to build a house is more or less the same across the country. The variables are cost of the land and cost of regulations. If you want affordable housing you need Sprawl. Build more roads, more mass transit. Aim to get gas and cars cheaper. Prohibit mega corporations like Blackrock from scooping all the homes. Invest in neglected neighborhoods and Towns. People follow work. If good jobs are found not only in major cities people will have more incentive to live in small towns (cheaper land cost). Also, traditional property taxes and Land Value Tax are a wealth taxs and will push people out their homes when Value of land or homes goes up.
Sprawl is an unaffordable luxury - most cities simply can't afford to maintain even more roads and services for so few people per unit area. You need at least medium density - terrace/townhouse development - to be affordable, and yes, it needs public transport so you're not trying to fit a two car garage into every three bedroom dwelling. Banning corporations from owning houses, 100%. That desperately needs to happen.
@@tealkerberus748 Sprawl is perfectly affordable. If you look at the budget of most towns Schools and Police are the biggest expenses. That doesn't mean you can have little more density in Town center or Main road. Towns will overspend if given a chance regardless how dense the town is.
@@bobsontheepic42the issue is the infrastructure replacement cost, that does not occur every year but over time the town will become financially insolvent
@@pr0wnageify infrastructure is not that expensive and increased density simply means faster deterioration of said infrastructure. Again, if you loom at city like NYC infrastructure is terrible even though it has high density. Mismanagement of funds by local government leads to deteriorating infrastructure.
The last time real estate prices saw a significant dip, the economy experienced an unprecedented decade plus long economic boomed driven by consumers having a lot more spending money.
Land value tqx exists here in Brazil. It just makes everything more expensive because it goes to the person renting it. The landlord just passes on the cost. It's one of the most stupid taxes💩
What an excellent video! I was looking forward to hearing how government owned affordable non market housing plays a role in the housing crisis but you never got to it
Seems like a land tax would incentivize suburban sprawl and the loss of all green spaces as owners are incentivized to develop every square inch of land. Can't imagine what this would do to farmers.
Farmers already lose a lot from suburban sprawl. I do believe Oregon implemented a city limit law that prohibited urban sprawl expansions into rural areas.
Those are somewhat contradictory statements. Part of the reason we sprawl so much now is because we horrendously waste land in urban centers. So making better use of that land would mean less need to develop on the periphery. The trick with LVT is that land value isn't the same all over, but based on the demand for the land's location (or mineral wealth, but that's more of a niche case). Land in downtown Manhattan is worth way more than land in rural Wyoming because lots of people want to live there. This is mostly because towns and cities (in theory) provide more amenities, which the LVT goes to help pay for, creating a logical payback cycle (i.e., cities and towns getting back the wealth that they themselves generate by providing for their citizens). Conversely, a farmer would be paying way less per acre in LVT than someone in a city. And if their LVT does go up due to demand, it's a strong indicator that said land may be better used for other things. It really is a very clean solution, compared to the knotted web of broken incentives and regulations that we have today.
@@Robbedem To be fair, that's already a huge problem with property taxes today, and really any system. In a way, LVT actually provides fewer opportunities for corruption, since two lots next to each other should theoretically be taxed at the same value per area. Compare that with having to determine the value of a building, and there's way less leeway for error.
@@Descriptor413 ok, that's true. 2e problem with LVT is what to do with people being forced out of their house because land value went up. (f.e. because a park was built nearby) I suppose in a way that's the intended effect. But Many people will consider that to be wrong.
8:45 I feel like the point being made here is overshadowed by the fact that housing prices raised 100% and above in a year. Part of this may be because this is average home price and not median home price but I simply don’t see a world where a tax will discourage buying an asset with that high of potential for gains and I think looking at the axis helps frame this as problem to do with housing and not income.
The solution is the government builds millions of homes until rent is 20% of take home pay and mortgage payments are 15% of take home pay. People can own homes of they want, like collectors own baseball cards and the wealthy can trade luxury things among themselves. For everyone else that just wants a place to live, there needs to be government provided starter homes like condos that are small in square footage and create population density.
🤦🤦🤦 There are more peopleless homes than homeless people. Creating more government-funded construction is just going to lead to more rich people owning homes if you don't create progressive taxation, or disincentive, on excessive utilization of the housing supply. You're just inflating the landlord/ bank ownership market.
You guys keep trying to augment the capitalist system as if that's going to help... No it just creates augmentations of a bad system into a different bad system. Change the system.
@@WanderingExistence No, it would be a parallel market. Government would supply homes to first time owners and the private market would exclusively be for luxury and anything more than the basic small condo in a large condo complex. There is no market for the common baseball card but a signed card from an iconic player is valuable. The government would provide the common cards and the housing market is for the home equivalent of a collector.
The land value tax would push the working class out of home ownership entirely as competing market forces disenfranchise them economically from having the income to pay the land tax (on top of a mortgage and mortgage interest). We’d be right back where we started with everything owned by corporations that gouge everyone within an inch of bankruptcy for housing and a stagnant economy where no one has any purchasing power.
Georgism doesn’t work unless you have little or no zoning restrictions. Either you collapse land values with zoning restrictions and get low tax rates or have no zoning restrictions and high tax rates, but at the price of having super high density development all over.
I would argue that high density wouldn't be the only outcome in a no-zoning LVT situation. There's legit market demand for low density housing. It's just that under LVT, the true societal cost of that kind of living would be reflected in the cost of living there, removing the subsidy that exists currently. You'd either build those homes in lower value area (low value due to less infrastructure, and thus less tax burden), or if somebody really wanted a house in a very high demand area, they would have to pay for the privilege (since they're preventing more people from being able to live there). In other words, it's an actual market again.
@@Descriptor413Yeah, the market will get skewed but will find a new equilibrium. What we’re describing is basically Houston where you can have mansions next door to industrial offices next to oil refineries. Not all the highest density but perhaps the highest use, and Texas taxes them accordingly.
@@MichaelChengSanJose Houston's not even quite the free-for-all that people assume. While they don't have zoning, they do make extensive use of land covenants to restrict certain forms of development. Not quite as bad, thankfully, but still limiting. From what I recall, neighborhoods on the periphery of Houston do use zoning still, though. Plus, Houston makes other mistakes, such as overbuilding highways, which opens up cheap land on the periphery, and thus super sprawl. Not to mention having horrible traffic, despite having like 16 lane highways (depending on how you count frontage roads). They do have a surprisingly decent regional bus system, though!
Honestly - if you are looking to sell the Land Value Tax idea (and also have it work once implemented) don't have it as a new tax added to the books -- have it as a replacement tax - i.e. taxes on [insert taxes to be removed here] will be stopped altogether and Replaced by the LVT. Otherwise? All the politicians who want more money to spend will do is add the LVT on, keeping everything else and bleeding us more than they already are.
Young men poor cannot afford marriage if they do get married somehow they'll be divorced as financial issues are one of the leading causes for divorce. This is today's reality and can't be compared with pre-social media days. If poor men choose to remain unmarried what are they going to live for, what is their purpose?
What about Public Housing? Instead of middle man’s trying to profit of people that need a house to live in we may let the government take over. Those houses don’t have to be sold for a profit
We already have public housing provided by the government for people who can't afford it in the U.S. They're called housing projects or "the projects" by those that live there. They're crime ridden hell holes that resemble 3rd world African countries more than anything else. Crime is rampant and the area is controlled by gangs. Police refuse to go there because it's too dangerous for the officers. Don't even think of trying to live in one if you're not black, or maybe Hispanic.
That is vulnerable to corruption. In Romania there is a tiny program like this, 4-20 flats per city which are supposed to be used by very poor families but instead entire flats are given to the mayor or one of his relatives/friends so that they can subrent it out to other people for more than the market rate.
If you are not in the financial market space right now, you are making a huge mistake. I understand that it could be due to ignorance, but if you want to make your money work for you... prevent inflation
Thanks for continuing updates I'd rather trade the crypto market as it's more profitable. I make a good amount of money per week even though I barely trade myself.
A lot of people still make massive profit from the crypto market, all you really need is a relevant information and some ‹professional advice. ‹it's totally inappropriate for investors to hang on while suffering from dip during significant
Hallelujah!!! I’m blessed and favored with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and support the work of God and the church. For Your glory, LORD! HALLELUJAH!
Of course you can, build more houses. The issue is we don't elect officials that support medium density, mixed use building developments and people insist on living in stupidly expensive existing cities.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit www.brilliant.org/howmoneyworks. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
What it will actually do is...
1st = force people with little income to sell their assets.
2nd = buy those assets who are already rich in discount.
3rd = then increase tax to the previous place so that even if you have income you can't participate.
4th = increase tax loophole so that you please the elite for your political Career.
In conclusion, it is to force people who have no income out of their homes.
Won’t georgism harm farmers? I mean they need a lot of land to efficiently grow crops.
@@nabibunbillah1839not at all. The last housing downturn was a long term benefit to those with little income. Less spent on mere housing = more to spend elsewhere
The solution is simple for the political cost. You tax all land, EXCLUDING the land where your primary residence is built on. NOONE should pay taxes for a house that has been totally paid off, else you are just paying rent to the government. So the pensioners and ranchers are safe, as long as they actually LIVE in their property. Any other property past the land you live on can then be taxed. Simple.
Why would we? We purposely drove the price of housing up.
I don't want my house to be an investment, i don't want my house to be an asset, i don't want my house to be anything finance bros even think about. I just want a goddamn place to live.
Yes!!! I don't fucking care for prices to fall. Because i still have a place to livee
Too bad, it is and it’s never going to get better.
Then there is no incentive to build them if they aren't worth alot
@@christianmoore7932 except one of the reasons for the current housing crisis is a lack of homes being built?
@@jonathanabgrall6075 Getting rid of entrenched politicians is incredibly difficult and SCOTUS just effectively legalized bribery this session. I admire your child like bliss
If basic housing is unaffordable, the economy is already broken
...and it's already doomed to crash if your (country's) Currency is no longer the exclusive one used for Oil Commodities
Hence bitcoin.
Fuck government currencies and the broken corrupt fractional reserve and central banking
@@iller3 Actually, the two are unrelated. Don’t despair. Markets tend to correct themselves and revert to the mean.
With the wealth gap the markets converge towards housing solutions where most are slaves to their landlords.
@@maxp3141 take 100 men on an island and make one of them the owner of the whole island and all of the agriculture and the other 99 have no choice but to rent from him and to work for him so they can buy the proceeds from h8s farms for food.
Now take 100 men on an island and make one of them the owner of the other 99 as slaves.
What is the difference economically?
I’m in Ohio and the housing market here over the last 7-8 years is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Homes that were bought for $130K in 2015 are now being sold for $590k. I’m talking about tiny, disgusting, poorly built 950 square foot shit boxes in quiet mediocre neighborhoods. Then you’ve got Better, average sized homes in nicer neighborhoods that were $300K+ 10 years ago selling for $750k+ now. Wild times.
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes.If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
Consider moving your money from the housing market to financial markets or gold due to high mortgage rates and tough guidelines. Home prices may need to drop significantly before things stabilize. Seeking advice from a financial advisor who understands the market could be helpful in making the right decisions.
I will be happy getting assistance and glad to get the help of one, but just how can one spot a reputable one?
Iynne Marie Stella is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment..
I looked up her name online and found her page. I emailed and made an appointment to talk with her. Thanks for the tip.
Speaking from Australia, for the love of all that is holy do not copy anything we did here. The lesson any country should take away from our example is the lower you make the barrier of entry into housing the more rich old fucks will buy houses and push prices up.
You need a solution that targets the core issue of using houses as an investment asset classes.
The video covers that. It's literally the entire point of the video. Did you watch the video?
Yeah I don’t really know what you guys are doing down there
A simple law that caps the amount of residential housing an entity can own to just one would fix that. Including apartment buildings. Do you want to own an apartment building? Congrats. You gotta love there, too. No house for you.
Fun fact, Romania under its vommunist rule had a law that allowed a person to own only one house or only one appartment, not two and not both. This lead to Romanians having one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. However, now that more free market laws are in place, rich people are buying a lot of homes and its becoming harder for younger people to purchase their first home.
@@HowMoneyWorksGetting ready to buy a yurt, because the ones under 35 generally can’t afford jack due to getting annihilated by bad policies, older generations and foreign investment.
Buying a home is challenging, especially if you're not paying in cash or avoiding a government loan. Even with just the minimum monthly payments on a 30-year mortgage, I’ll end up paying more than twice the value of my home. I was fortunate to buy before the market went wild, so I secured a good interest rate. I can't imagine trying to rent or buy in the current conditions.
I hope to own a home some day, not quite long I started investing. I'm very curious already and need help on how to enhance and increase my returns. Any good investment tips will be appreciated.
The enduring US stock market bull run evokes a mix of fear and excitement, presenting opportunities with insight, resulting in $780k gains in the past ten months, utilizing a portfolio advisor for a well-defined strategy.
Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach you using their service?
Rebecca Nassar Dunne maintains an online presence that can be easily found through a simple search of her name on the internet.
I just checked her out and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon
I was 19 and spent my life savings on a down payment on a near totalled house. Originally it was valued at 60,000. 8 years later today, it's valued at $250,000. You'd think I'm rich, but if I sold it, I could only afford a smaller house. So f*cking weird.
Pull the equity, purchase the new home and rent it out.
are you planning on renovating the house and living there at some point?
That’s because the value of the home doesn’t increase. It’s just that the value of our money that decreases.
At 19 years old, my life savings was -8k due to college
@@victorespino5650 yikes...
Don't have a job = can't afford housing.
Have a job = can't afford housing.
So why have a job?
I’m closing in on my retirement and I’d like to move from Regina to a warmer climate, but the prices on homes are stupidly ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%) do I just invest my spare cash into stock and wait for a housing crash or should I go ahead to buy a home anyways?
A lot of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $275k to $850K.
This is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation.
'Carol Vivian Constable, a highly respected figure in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her credentials, as she possesses extensive experience and serves as a valuable resource for individuals seeking guidance in navigating the financial market.
She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran an online search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.
In my opinion, a housing market crash is imminent due to the high number of individuals who purchased homes above the asking price despite the low interest rates. These buyers find themselves in precarious situations as housing prices decline, leaving them without any equity. If they become unable to afford their homes, foreclosure becomes a likely outcome. Even attempting to sell would not yield any profits. This scenario is expected to impact a significant number of people, particularly in light of the anticipated surge in layoffs and the rapid increase in the cost of living.
I suggest you offset your real estate and get into stocks, A recession as bad it can be, provides good buying opportunities in the markets if you’re careful and it can also create volatility giving great short time buy and sell opportunities too. This is not financial advise but get buying, cash isn’t king at all in this time!
You are right! I’ve diversified my 450K portfolio across various market with the aid of an investment coach, I have been able to generate a little bit above $830k in net profit across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds.
@@maryHenokNftImpressive can you share more info
Certainly, I am still working with *Izella Annette Anderson* and the beauty of it is her expertise extends to various aspects of financial advisory, including stocks. She has skillfully constructed a diversified portfolio for me.
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a caII.
Great video! For 2024, it’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market is because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.
I suggest you offset your real estate and get into stocks, A recession as bad it can be, provides good buying opportunities in the markets if you’re careful and it can also create volatility giving great short time buy and sell opportunities too. This is not financial advise but get buying, cash isn’t king at all in this time!
People often overlook the value of financial advisors until they experience the downside of emotional decision-making. I recall a few summers ago, after a difficult divorce, when I needed help reviving my struggling business. I did some research and found a licensed advisor who worked diligently to grow my reserves, even amid inflation. As a result, my reserves grew from $275k to around $750k.
this is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Melissa Terri Swayne” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran a Google search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.
In Norway, there is a significant difference in tax for your primary living property and secondary properties, making it much more lucrative to sell a home as you move instead of hoarding real estate. It does not solve "affordable housing", but it helps.
I believe that this is a very good solution, however it would never happen in non-progressive countries (UK, USA, etc...) because the people in the government will likely have multiple properties in their names and don't want to pay extra tax.
Politicians are out for themselves rather than representing the people.
We have upward-scaling taxes in FL.
It didn't help.
Under America's current system it can't work. Hundreds of billions of dollars are sent overseas to forgien countries, and to support the massive influx of migrants. All straining the working class further. On top of that the simple supply and demand, more people in the country means more demand for housing. Most Americans can't even afford to purchase a home of have children, let alone a secondary property.
That would be a good thing to put into effect.
I've heard mixed things with Norway home buying.
As long as houses are an investment, we will never have affordable homes.
That's what China found out the hard way. It didn't matter how many barebone concrete shells sold as "homes" they built, because investment-wise it's the only game in town. So despite having at least twice as many properties as people, upwards of three generations' worth of life savings have to be poured into a single mortgage due to this market setup.
Well, if you're right, then I guess we will never have affordable homes because houses will always be an investment.
Homes being an investment is not the cause of the problem, it is an effect of policies which made investment in property comparable to investment in actual economic activity. We need to target those policies and homes will cease to be a lucrative investment.
Buying a home will always be an investment because it means you're not wasting money on rent.
Renting out homes you own will always be an investment because someone else is paying the expenses while you build equity. Rental housing will always be necessary because 10s of millions of people need it. Whether they aren't financially responsible enough to pay for a house, haven't had time to save a down payment, don't want the responsibility of ownership, or don't plan on living in an area long enough to bother buying. Personally, I fall into both of the latter 2 categories.
@@doujinflip It is important to note that the main reason housing is the main investment for Chinese citizens is because their government constantly intervenes in their stock exchange which makes investing in companies very risky as opposed to housing. Additionally, the reason why housing is now starting to collapse in China is because their government has now prohibited the construction companies from taking certain loans that allowed them to finance their housing projects. I guess the Chinese people have no safe form of investing now.
The housing market is inflated and oversaturated with homes being on the market with astronomical price tags just stagnant for months. It is very clear that or generation will be likely one of the most devastating bubble pops in modern history. Seeking best possible ways to grow 250k into $1m+ and get a good house for retirement.
I don't think here is the place for personalized investment guidance. However, I suggest consulting with a reliable advisor like Azul to ensure appropriate retirement planning.
I’m closing in on retirement, and I have benefitted much from using a financial advisor. I didn’t really start early, so I knew the compound interest of index fund investing would not work for me. Funny how I pulled in over 80% profit than some of my peers who have been investing for many years. Maybe you should consider this too
I've been considering getting one, but haven't been proactive about it. Can you recommend your advisor? I could really use some assistance.
'Melissa Elise Robinson' is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with to set up an appointment.
Thanks for sharing. I curiously searched for her full name and her website popped up immediately. I looked through her credentials and did my due diligence before contacting her.
What’s the point of having an economic system at all if no one can afford to live in it? Housing costs *must* come down - one way or another…
Slavery
This is why you push houses to the assessed tax value. The only reason housing prices went so high is due to the 30-year mortgage and investments pressuring higher resell due to these. Putting it back to assessed value fixes that. Houses should only be assessed on their value, not "investment potential".
Exactly what we Antinatalists have said. If government won't make the law, the rules, the economy perfectly fair, then why should anyone breed? Government has no right to complain that nobody wants to have kids anymore.
I ask this all the time and people look at me like I'm blaspheming and growing horns.
@@itsJoshW a long duration mortgage doesn't pressure higher resell wym
Henry George was also in favor of taxing all types of natural resources. Alaska has been doing a UBI since 1982. It is funded by charging oil companies fees to extract oil from their land. We shouldn't let corporations be extracting and excluding natural resources for free, they should be paying for value that the citizens are entitled to! Divvy up the revenues into a citizen's dividend and pay people for being a part of a country that generates economic value.
The only people entitled to the profits from natural wealth extraction are those who contributed to in sone way to the extraction. The land belongs to whoever ownd tge deed to the land not the entirety of the the state or nation.
Hopefully you're not the president
@@luchain771 That mindset is how you end up with with an oligarchy
Don't they pay for permits, consultants for compliance, and often remediations. I work in environmental protection, and you'd be surprised how much these companies pay to stay compliant.
To the idiots in this country that would be communism
Americans are facing a tough time with their finances, especially concerning housing affordability and retirement savings
I'm getting worried about the rising housing prices. It seems like it's becoming harder to afford a home these days
Yeah, it's a real struggle. With the rising housing prices and stagnant wages, it's becoming increasingly difficult for many to afford homes, let alone save for retirement
And with the fear of not being able to retire comfortably, people might be tempted to make risky investments or neglect proper financial planning, which could spell trouble for their portfolios in the long run
It's a vicious cycle. If people can't afford homes, they might delay retirement savings, but if they focus solely on saving for this. Economic instability, inflation, and market fluctuations can further complicate matters and add to people's financial worries
It's crucial for individuals to diversify their portfolios, seek professional financial advice, and stay informed about market trends to navigate these challenges effectively
A couple of options:
1. Restrict corportate ownerrship of homes.
2. Add additional tax for 2nd, 3rd homes and so forth. This is a cooling measure by HK. There, you get double tax if you're buying the second home. It doesn't have to be as severe.
3. Restrict frequent buying/selling. In taiwan, you wilk receive a penalty for selling a house you just bought within 2 years. This discourages speculative buying, and selling.
4. Build better infrastructure.
Any other ideas?
Restructure the economy so that workers own their own means of production.
The government subsidized small houses or apartment complexes for the working class. Worked like a charm in my country because the people respect the chance and the building, and with good public transportation
@@literallyhuman5990 It can work well, the HDB complexes were a good reference from Singapore.
It could create a sandwich effect though. A lot of people can afford neither public housing nor private housing. But it can be executed to great effect in America.
These are just measures to thwart demand from certain people in favor of other people.
The cure for high prices is high prices only if supply is allowed to meet demand.
Consumer electronics are cheap but they use to be expensive. Why? Because profits were to be had by mass production. Companies produced as much as long as it’s profitable and when the market is saturated, we have plenty and it’s very affordable.
The same thing can easily happen in housing if allowed. Those that buy second, third homes. Foreign buyers, investors, and company’s can actually fuel a building frenzy.
If supply was allowed to meet all that demand that would mean more housing. Eventually, so much housing would be built that it becomes a losing investment, prices start to fall, the market is flooded with cheap housing. which is good for renters and later buyers.
This happened in Houston during the 1980s. They overbuilt so much that rents were cheap for a long long time.
And the government should also regulate less. Making the construction easier for builders
-Houses are affordable in places like Vienna and to a lesser extent Singapore (at least for renting). It hasn't wrecked the economy in any way.
-If people spend less on renting or mortgages, that's discretionary income which can be injected into consumption and other economic activity.
-Affordable housing will also have a boosting effect on the likelihood of young adults to marry, have children etc. That too is beneficial to the economy.
Really property developers and landlords are the only segment of "the economy" benefiting from expensive housing.
Call them what they are, rent seekers. Henry George didn't like them, neither did Adam Smith, and obviously neither did Karl Marx
Yeah. The main difference is that they constantly build high rise condos and apartments instead of single family homes. They have better zoning laws which allow this and less building regulations that are useless (dont influence health/saftey). Allat can easily fixed by fixing city zoning laws, Ignoring NIMBYs, and getting rud of honestly unnecessay building regulations
Those countries build dense housing, not single family homes in the middle of massive suburbs
Saying housing is affordable in Singapore just shows you’re out of touch
@@Demopans5990 I prefer "economic dead weight"
I think it's time to make it more appealing for potential buyers. Real estate can be quite the rollercoaster! the stress and uncertainty are getting to me. I think I'll cut rents to attract potential buyers and exit the market, but i'm at crossroads if to allocate the entire $680k liquidity value to my stock portfolio?
Overall, buyers hold a lot of the cards right now, and sellers are having to give out more concessions to close a deal." All the best, buying on sale is actually one of the best ways to invest in stocks, and advisors are ideally suited for such task
Until the Fed clamps down even further I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now with financial markets will be best you seek a fin-professional with fiduciary responsibilities who knows about mortgage-backed securities for proper guidance.
this sounds considerable! think you know any advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Sharon Ann Meny is the licensed coach I use. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I appreciate it. After searching her name online and reviewing her credentials, I'm quite impressed. I've contacted her as I could use all the help I can get. A call has been scheduled.
The basis of the housing market being the "backbone" of an economy, relies on not supplying enough housing for economically active citizens over the actual GDP that citizens could offer if they were sufficiently housed.
You don't need to give these things for free, but if a citizen has a home, clean water and heating, the rest will practically fall into place.
And the leveraging and reliance on the housing market will, with no doubt, induce severe fluctuations in that market from time to time. It becomes a stock that people sell off in large volumes that affect the overall market value and negatively impact those without the option to buy and sell on an annual basis.
Ok
This tuber such an ideologue he completely ignores the solution.
Government increasing supply.
It’s how the US had cheaper housing in the past
"relies on not supplying enough housing" what you yapping
China had the housing market as backbone and an oversupply of housing.
How's other people buying and selling houses affecting you? As long as you pay the mortgage, the bank won't want to foreclose on you.
@@nietur different underlying problem. China was essentially a speculative bubble Vs western countries where house prices are structurally high.
China also has a very savings focussed culture but domestic banks and stock market aren't trusted by the public forcing everyone into real estate
"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." - Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI "Of the Rent of Land"
Not sure that's all that applicable today with modern transportation.
My father is a farmer and owns about half the land he farms. And if offered, there's zero chance he would agree to buy more farmland from his landlords, even though he could easily afford it.
@@rpospeedwagon That's because your father is a farmer and thinks about how to use the land, not how to turn it into maximized profit
@@kaijuultimax9407 if all farmers turned to business men youd be eating money (im not sure whos side im on)
@@SantinoDeluxe Sounds like a cash crop 🤑
This right here is the crux of the issue. For decades the housing market has only been driven by how much people can borrow. People's budget is whatever the bank will give them, and housing prices are whatever at least some people can pay.
I've been watching the housing market closely, Prices have been skyrocketing for years. It's going to be tough for first-time buyers to enter the market." how can one diversify $280k reserve .
I agree, It's not just the prices, but also the increasing interest rates that are making it more difficult for people to afford homes. With a good FA you can make up your portfolio.
The housing market has always had its ups and downs, but it's true that this time feels different. Having a portfolio manager will save you a lot in the market , My portfolio currently has 200% increase last couple of months with the help of my advisor.
in times like these, it's crucial to be cautious and not rush into the market , Who is this your FA , my portfolio needs urgent attention , been a lot of lose.
Annette Christine Conte is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment...
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since l need all the assistance l can get. I just scheduled a caII.
I love that Patrick and Plain Bagel are his friends and they just fire shots at each other in random videos
Firing shots. There's some truth to it. Patrick is making rap videos, so desperate to do anything for money.
@@swaggeryYeah, never expected him to sell out to big rap.
I also appreciate that he used the clip from Plain Bagel’s April Fools video
😂😂 me too
@@component9008 he never sold out, he was always in their pocket, the finance thing was just a side hobby.
In Brazil we have been building new neighborhoods with simple houses for the poor for over a decade now. You need to be in the lower income ranges to be eligible for purchasing them and sometimes they are just given to these families. There are a bunch of conditions so that middle class and rich guys don't buy them.
This has helped with the issue of poor people not having where to live or being subject to bad rents. It's imperfect, but works well enough
Thank you to the smart Brazilian activists who no doubt fought for years and years to make that a reality!
@@theultimatereductionist7592 the plan is called minha casa minha vida and was created in 2009 during the second term of president Lula
Good! "Oh, your income is over $65,000 a year? Go away."
High school drop put McDonald's worker? Absolutely this way sir!
@@prettyboyjeremy Not so much "Go away" as "your neighborhood is over there. Go back out to the main road, turn left, drive about five miles, and you'll see it on the right. Enjoy".
@@prettyboyjeremy It is pretty much that, a whole neighborhood filled with low skill workers. Most of the time it just devolves into a slum and crime usually concentrates there... Did someone stole your car? Its probably being dissembled in the poor neighborhood. After a while it falls into deep disrepair and its hardly any different from invasion construction. There is also a trend where after a while the drug lord gets most of the land as payment for drug debt.
But yay communism and free stuff.
Gen Z: “I can’t see what’s happening, are we boned?”
Millennials: “Yeah, we’re boned.”
Fuck it we ball
I work in real estate but with a mission to make housing affordable through new processes techniques, materials and volume. It’s a hard industry to make an impact in. I network with other real estate professionals and unfortunately you have a lot of those who don’t care about affordability and only about making money. Any talk of lowing home prices and they recoil with distain. It’s an industry wide issue and it’s hard to solve for without the government taking a stand. We have forgotten what housing is for and turned it into a commodity.
It's the opposite, housing was seen as a commodity before, which is why prices were more reasonable. But now, its an investment vehicle, therefore they want the value to keep rising.
Genuine question though, do you think the real estate sector even wants affordable homes? Don't they benefit more financially as long as housing appreciates in value?
Driving society into the ground by driving up home prices
If "housing" is becoming a luxury investment, then maybe we need a new classification of commodity that is not considered an investment
Affordable homes could be called "basic dignified shelter" which would fill the need for starter homes and keep them OUT of investor pockets! 😡
God applauses the humanitarian efforts.
The economy would BOOM if everyone had a paid off house. So much extra disposable income would flood the stock market and retailers. It would be a boom like you have never seen before.
very true. housing investors are stealing a huge chunk of the american economy and keeping people poor.
But the banks wouldn't like that, so it won't happen
@garethfairclough8715it's the biggest industry right?
@@jackMeought-fr8vl
Nimbys and Karens are the ones who don't want restrictive zoning and bureaucracy gone.
There would be mass inflation and shortages, and eventually prices would be completely unaffordable.
You didn't mention the PRIMARY reason it makes homeownership attainable.
The land value tax is a holding cost for property. This reduces the price of the property, the same way any asset is going to sell for less if it has a tax on it.
This turns the land cost from being upfront to being recurring, removing a huge part of the hurdle in acquiring your first home.
AND! Property values come from two parts - the land and the building. The land appreciates, but the building depreciates. Attaching a tax burden to the land value pretty much instantly kills the financiaization and speculative economics around housing.
I work in RE. I think another solution that gets massively looked over is rewarding people for rehabbing more. There's so many dilapidated houses all over America that are just going to sit there and rot because it's impossible make any money rehabbing and then selling them. There needs to be some kind of incentive. I can think of at least 5 properties in my immediate area that have been just wasting away for the past 20+ years. Not only would this give people more housing but it would also clean up our aesthetics.
The cool thing about land value taxation is it doesn't charge you more for adding more value in construction... You can add so much more value and just pay the same amount of tax on the land.
Isn't home flipping enough of its own reward? Thoe 5 dilapidated homes do have buyers, their price is just too high
The reason you don't see this happen is because the location of these homes is located in a hellscape where crime is high and society is in collapse.
If a house is vacant for too long, it can deteriorate in such fundamental ways that it can become impossible to restore, it has to be torn down. It depends on the climate and the construction of course.
@@pappaflammyboi5799 Yes for many. Yet we created the mess over many decades of redlining/white-flight taking wealth and realtors lower and lowering values. Since the FDR era of FHA loans.... their redlining maps prevented FHA low-interest government guaranteeing bank loans. Told banks not to loan in them areas. Even post WW2 GI loans were not going there as less than 2% went to minorities especially in them areas.
Add lost industry and industry that could hire only ethnic groups who founded them. My first full time job was in such a place late 70s. Forced to quota hire minorities.... It for decades only hired Italians and Greeks. I was merely gotten in by Union worker there got me in as the only that period white hire. They eventually moved to the suburbs than China. Early 80s deep recession I lost that good job for a young person. The old plant still stands as their corporate HQ's and museum of all their products they ever made.
Now if these areas are in proximity to following Gentrification or that cities core or CBD as some have more than one. If still were quality built and with architectural features people like.... it does get saved. Some cities as a Houston like their inner-loop around their core. Those small homes on large lots on blocks basically are just bought out and leveled.
A Chicago has lots of old quality housing even in those areas that if it could grow more would surely today have more saved. Best of it generally does and rented in hopes of some bonanza in the future that at this time is not coming quick.
Many of these cities built quality homes built to last full basements etc. To save all these homes should be a policy worth utilizing with infill that can eventually come. They do need people with means to purchase and afford to pay by all the upgrades done. Those already there without large gov subsidies generally never will. So it would take a whole new clientele to move in and that is what Gentrification basically is.
Thank God this and other cities maintained solid quality housing in neighborhoods that did not decline or severely at all. Quality homes 100 yrs old is a testament to quality that came from required levels of it of builders and zoning did. Giving guidelines ALL had to abide to created that quality housing when some areas left anything you could build get built and even if it lasted .... was not seen as good enough to save today and would not take open-floor plans we want etc.
0:59 "There is a big overlap between people who want affordable housing, as long as it's not theirs."
Great summary of the underlying problem! 🤣🤣🤣
People will have to accept reality that we won't ever return to 3%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. I now look towards the stock market to fuel my millionaire goal. Sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
U.S. stocks have historically been the best investment. Treat it like real estate, don't panic sell and impulse buy.
I like both. But in my experience, most of the millionaires that I know have gained their wealth through diversified investments and they all had a sort of advisor helping out with informed decisions.
@arlenehill4ril real estate prices exploded, interest rates exploded, but my wage the same, i'm screwed! who is your advisor please, if you dont mind me asking? in dire need of proper asset allocation
Millionaire goals? That’s the problem right there. Greed.
@@talisikid1618 planning to retire is greed? Being a millionaire is just planning for retirement.
Yes, but fat chance getting governments to actually do something.
Sweden did something with the Million Programme.
Japan didn't build stuff directly, but has very relaxed zoning laws, and Tokyo has the cheapest housing prices of any global city.
Their to busy blocking or trying to force their religion on us or privatize our school.
Actually, we should want them to do less, and demand a downsize. But you can't catch that from this video, which seems to largely assume that government is doing the right things in the right ways and... they don't need a haircut - just a tweak of tax methods. I'm calling bullshit on that. A pension farm has been erected to vote for itself, and its consuming the nation just like termites tear down a house: one bite at a time.
@@illiiilli24601 how's Tokyo the cheapest? you looking at rent per sqm as well?
None of this was a problem in the US until the 90s when the Boomers all surpassed the average first home buyer age. In another couple decades once that generation has lost political power the government can start functioning again.
High desenity, medium density and SOME low desity mixed used neighborhoods that are walkable, bikeable and have fast frequent public transportation.
We all know that's not going to work. You could find an area to build high density housing. Heck, maybe you could throw in a few shops and a wal mart that's in a walkable distance. Dosent change the fact that every other place of interest isn't walkable. People living in these high density areas will still need to drive to get to their jobs and do other things.
There is no room for trains in most areas. Buses would take longer than a private car. If you have a 20 minute trip by car and you want to convert that into a bus trip, in what world does the whole process of waiting for a bus go faster? And highly unlikely the bus is going to park you off in a walkable distance from said job or even if there will be a side walk for you to walk on.
Plus you should be aware of how fast we would find the public transportation nasty and unpleasant. This isn't Japan. After a bit you will feel nasty and unsafe on such buses like most people do. I've been to a few areas of the country that has decent public transportation by the average standard. I was in awe, but all the locals said how unsafe and nasty it was. They lived in a walkable distance from it all too and still chose private car.
Just forget about public transportation and focus on housing.
@@baronvonjo1929
It's all a system that works together. When built properly making walking, biking and Transit faster than a personal car.
Car dependency is expensive for the home owner (car note, fuel, parking, focus time while traveling, insurance, maintenance, it's a depreciating) and the government to maintain the infrastructure.
Walkable bikeable neighborhoods with fast frequent Transit. Prioritize other modes a transportation besides the car to make efficient neighborhoods. This makes driving faster for people who choose to drive because there are less cars on the road because they are taking Transit or walking or biking. This makes it faster for police and fire fighters and EMS to get to their destinations.
You can walk or bike to a bus or train station and while you're on the bus or the train, you can sleep, listen to music, read, do some homework or work.
Buses and train have their own right-of-way so they don't have to deal with all the car traffic with only one person in that car.
You can build elevated or underground trains and they require less maintenance because it's a metal wheel on a metal track rather than an asphalt highway with rubber tires. More friction and tear down happens with driving on asphalts rather than taking the train so less maintenance has to be done
Suburban sprawl requires more highway miles and more highway maintenance because people live way further from from work and fun work. efficient neighborhoods are better
Trains and buses are what you make them. The United States does not give them enough money to make them great. Not all buses are dirty, that's just a stereotype
We only prioritize the car in the United States. That's why people have the notion that Transit is slower. If you build efficient Transit, it will be much faster and comfortable for the driver. And of course it is safer because there are millions of car accidents each year.
Of course they will always be rooms somewhere for single family homes, but that lifestyle is super expensive for the homeowner and the government to maintain
@@baronvonjo1929
It all works together as a system. When done correctly it is fastly better than the norm.
Car dependency is expensive for the homeowner (car note, fuel, insurance, maintenance, parking, time taking from you by actively driving, depreciation ) and the government to maintain (highways break down faster because there are more friction. It's asphalt surface with rubber tires. Tearing it up constantly. Trains are metal wheels on metal tracks so there's less friction ideally requiring less maintenance) (You can move more people with a train track set going in both direction compared to an eight-lane highway)
We need to build neighborhoods where you can walk or bike to work or walk or bike to a bus or train station. On the bus or train people can sleep, do work, do homework, or read. Rather than being stressed stunk actively driving in traffic
Trains can be elevated or underground. We need to build dedicated lanes for buses so they don't have to compete with the same traffic. This is what slows it down.
You check your transit app for when the next bus comes so you only arrive at the bus or train station with a few minutes to spare so you're not wasting time.
Public transportation gets a bad rep in the United States because we do not invest the money into it to make it actually great. All we care about is highways. I use Transit all around the world and it is so efficient and great
Car dependency and urban sprawl is expensive because housing is further away from jobs, entertainment, and resources. This requires more material to build and maintain. If everyone wants so much space then you have to keep pushing suburbs further and further away from the core City requiring more maintenance for the government.
Building efficient cities around walking, biking and Transit will make traffic flow faster for people who choose to drive and emergency vehicles.
That won't fix anything. That creates the capability of wealth inequality based on regional neighborhoods -- People that "can afford" that, then move there, while people that can't, are divided into neighborhoods without. The Low Density housing isn't rural, it's inner-city; Which are duplexes.
All the urbanist movement is to do, is to create rural, small town living inside of sectional urban sprawl inner-city neighborhoods, subdividing "housing" from "complex & business district". In turn, that'll generate heavy profit for larger corporate owners, and provide incentive to increase costs to provide living for specified class individuals capable of living there (notice no one states public option housing, with no tax and maintained via city with competition of private industry to regulate it).
A solution is to stop building private apartment rentals, force previous single-family (now duplexes and multi-family units) that are inner-city back into single-family owner-occupird units, force all housing costs to be equal to assessed property tax value, and remove anything above a 15-year mortgage. Of course that'll collapse some banks, and we don't bail them out this time. We let "the free market" (lol) fix their failure of attempted exploitation, rather that provide them do-overs for exploiting people and collapsing the economy. And you can't do any of that without:
1) Wealth tax above $1m (not even income, wealth tax per year; Control inflation)
2) Removing money from politics
3) Regulating Capitalism (getting rid of neoliberalism).
The problem with urbanists, is that they never lived in an urban city. They lived in rural small towns, or gated communities, and want these areas to be "like a city" but also rural.
And none of that touches on the problems of relocation and job advancements or career changes. How on Earth can we pretend that you will "always" live within 15 minutes of work? I'm 35 years old, I started my working career in retail like 25 years ago, before that a musician. During which I worked as a cashier, then later a mechanic, then later call center, then later help desk, and now I work in application implementation. I literally can never say I worked within 15 minutes of my house, despite walking 3 minutes to an entire complex of numerous stores. I can walk to get my groceries, as I walked to the first place I worked. Life advancements must occur. It's a dream by wealthy people that they can "work 15 minutes from home" -- Of course, cause their career is TH-cam and their generation wealth purchased a €5,500 condo in Amsterdam, when the average American can't afford $1,000 for an apartment without roommates. (I own a house, but the point remains that this isn't about me, my house was a condemned house I spent weekends remodeling a couple years back).
Urbanist TH-camrs are larpers most of the time. Talk to any dude living in poverty and they'll straight up say "are you crazy, I don't want to walk to work forever, been doing it for half my life, why would I want that forever".
That's not fixing a problem. That creates classism, generates a greater divide than we already have. It's not a solution, it's the natural progression of the current system; privatized housing where the rich nepos live in subsidized housing, and the poor live in poverty.
@baronvonjo1929 you really can't ignore the transportation aspect of housing. Especially in large cities where congestion is obnoxious and parking is sparce or costly.
Complain about public transit all you want, but it's adaptation and expansion is inevitable for any municipality that has to prioritize housing and people over roads and cars.
It is difficult to make exact projections for the housing market as it is still unclear how quickly or to what degree the Federal Reserve will reduce inflation and borrowing costs without having a substantial negative impact on demand from consumers for anything from houses to cars.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone wants to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage rules are getting more difficult, and home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes. For now, get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. If you are at a cross roads or need honest advice on the best moves to take now, it is best to seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
I’ve been looking to switch to an advisor for a while now. Any help pointing me to who your advisor is?
'Jessica Lee Horst' is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
Thank you for this Pointer. It was easy to find her handler, She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her.
Where i live (Silicon Valley, USA) many houses are bought by foreigners as investment properties. A lot of those investment properties sit vacant for years at a time. They see these “investments” as a safe place to put their money because USA’s housing market is pretty stable. Also, I know people personally thought got lucky and bought a house when they were cheap or were given a house by their parent/grandparent. It’s sad that many young families can’t afford a cozy place they can call their home. Instead, most have to live in small over priced apartments and deal with stingy landlords that raise the rent price on you every damn year. Thanks America, turning everything into a fuckin investment 🫡Don’t even get me started with healthcare here in the USA…!
Landlords raise the rent every damn year because their expenses go up every damn year. Being a landlord is a business, not a charity. Like any other business, when expenses go up, so do prices.
@@TVluver2true, but they have also got very greedy. I can understand slight increases… but the last couple of years have been absurd. My rent went up by $300 dollars three years in a row, and when I asked why, they responded with “well it’s just market pricing around the area”. What’s happening is they are using software that calculates the maximum they should charge for rent, and when they all use it, all of the housing goes up and it’s totally artificial.
@@ROVA00 All business charge what the market will pay. I don't think we can expect housing to be any different. It is a business, afterall. I also think you can thank the government for at least some of the increases. Tenant protection laws have made it insanely time-consuming and expensive to evict someone and, with Covid, the government proved they can force landlords to turn their rentals into "free shelters" anytime an emergency is declared. A landlord has to charge more to save up to cover the losses on tenants that don't pay and to prepare for the next potential moratorium. Also, the constant threat of new rent controls means a landlord has to raise the rent as much as they can when they can because new laws may prevent them from raising it later. Once they get behind market value, they may never be allowed to catch up.
All that being said, expenses have gone up drastically for landlords in the past several years and I think this is the main reason for the large rent increases. In many states (perhaps most), property taxes go up with home values, so with home values going up so quickly, property taxes have skyrocketed. Insurance costs are also skyrocketing in many areas. Where I live (northern California), insurance rates are doubling and tripling each year. Of course these costs are going to be passed on to the tenants.
Being a landlord has become very risky and the rents reflect that risk. I got out of the long-term rental game because the risks and hassles became too much. I converted my 3 rentals to Airbnbs. So much easier to manage, less risk, and more profit. I think as more and more smaller landlords exit the business due to the risks and hassles caused by overbearing tenant protection laws, things are only going to get worse for tenants.
More supply = more housing and not oversized houses far from each other requiring full highway to get anywhere. Build 3-5 story appartment buildings with big yard, walking road going between them and bus/tram/train/metro station within hundreds of meters at most.
If nimbys complain there might be houses that aren't macmansions and people that can't afford those somewhere where the nimby might see them, well there is space for the nimby under the buss.
It's not unreasonable that people want to protect the value of the largest purchase they'll ever make.
@@harveypolanski755By forcing everyone else to not be able to build using the violent power of the state? Like you realize how selfish that is? It like saying you can't start another business next to mine because you will decrease my profits.
It's perfectly reasonable to protect your largest asset. It's also a shitty thing to do. The system we live in rewards doing shitty things, making them reasonable, but still shitty.
Problem is zoning across the country don’t allow for any apartment or duplex/multiplex home construction. When all you are allowed to build is large single family homes of course that’s gonna be the only thing available.
POV: You graduated college a year ago and decided (*forced to really) to temporarily live with your parents until you find a job. You hope to find a job with your new expensive degree that put you thousands of dollars in debt but can only find jobs that require a high school diploma. You save as much as you possibly can but you get rear ended and pushed into a Bentley and have to pay for the damage on top of the minimum payment for the pointless degree. Although you are incredibly grateful you aren’t homeless, you are also going a little crazy living with your parents especially after having your independence for four years. You can’t wait to move out and you stumble across this video, a symbol of hope, only to find out the policies that would help your situation would never pass because the ultra wealthy 1% would never fund the campaign of any one that would make them lose money.
(Edit: This was just a hypothetical scenario.. I have spoken to people struggling in this regard, but I do hvac and I’m big chillin😎.. prayers for the people struggling in these situations)
If you can't find a job with your college degree, then perhaps you chose a useless major like liberal arts or music theory. I know in my industry (accounting), companies are fighting each other to hire both fresh out of college newbies and experienced personnel. I've heard from friends in other industries that they are seeing the same thing in their companies...a severe lack of qualified job candidates. As for the minimum payment on your degree, the federal student loan program offers income-based repayment plans so their will be no payment if you don't have a job and even when you get a job, the payment will only be 5% of your disposal income. Blaming whatever financial woes you have on student loan payments is just an excuse.
@@TVluver2your all in the comments trying to attack the middle and poor classes. Guess what buddy you are closer to those groups than the 1% please hop off their d.
@@TVluver2 its not a major by major thing. americans all across the country from different majors are struggling to find jobs. and student loan debts affect millions of americans so how can it be an "excuse". sounds to me that you're just privileged and miserable.
@@TVluver2 while some degrees aren't as valuable as others, the economy isn't doing nearly as well as you think. As a recent grad, I know plenty of accomplished people with stem degrees that are struggling to find a decent paying job in their industry. We can't all be accountants, and someone has to produce the media and entertainment you consume daily (it's not finance bros)
Unfortunately I have no parents
There is no fixing this issue without a collapse. It is a necessity at this point.
But we shouldn’t pretend that it will be anything nearly as bad as 2008
Home prices could drop by the exact same amount without a fraction of the ripple effects
The long term economic benefits would still be there tho
There have been two "once-in-a-generation" economic depressions before I even turned 25. The price of a home inflated nearly 5x-6x from the time I was born to the current day. Clearly the system itself is the issue and needs to go.
Bush and Obama f'd us by not letting the market correct in 2008. All they did was prop up the bubble and we are now reading the whirlwind.
They want affordable housing... as long as it's not theirs.
Or at least so long as it's not in their neighbourhood. Classic NIMBYism
this is the heart of the neoliberals: proud endorsement of progressive social values - but complete refusal to see those values enacted if it *might* cause them any inconvenience of any sort
If federal government adds another land tax, it needs to ban states from charging property tax. Otherwise it will be a double whammy
What i want people to understand if there isn't enough apartments, they'll turn a house into the most inefficient apartment of all time, they'll subdivide that shit, which sucks for everyone, urban professionals have to live farther from the cities, and families become priced out of single family homes because supply is down
Seen it happen.
this is a really strong point - it's also a prominent problem in the US especially due to draconian housing regulations and NIMBYs stopping the development of anything other than single family homes that no one can afford anyhow
Nothing new but that happen in the past. you just fail to understand the home your parents and great parents had didn't have much development around it at the time.
Apartments are superior for society anyway.
Poorer inner city taxpayers literally subsidize suburbs, which use resources extremely inefficiently.
A partial solution to the housing situation is to finally make home owners in suburbs pay their fair show. Properly increasing property tax on suburbia would result in a larger ratio of apartments to single family homes. More housing units
@@SigFigNewtonInner cities are subsidized by the suburbs. Inner cities are almost always a tax sink. Not the other way around.
1:30 In 2023, we had a similar program in Poland. While in 2022, apartment prices stabilized, thanks to the government program in 2023 prices in the largest cities increased by over 20%. Now people are protesting against the introduction of a similar program by the new government.
But it was a preferred mortgage for certain borrowers. Not a cash incentive no? Or did I miss some news 😅
Do you have somewhere to point me so I can read about it? Polish is fine.
Yeah, nothing better than printing money and putting it into a lot of mortgages, what can go wrong.
And the program of building communal flats was basically abandoned...
Then here in Ontario, Canada, the conservative provincial government eliminated rent control from buildings made available after November 2018. Predictably, rent exploded and supply did not actually increase.
@@iExploderI mean it is super hard to build more housing.
*Amazing. “How to build wealth, do this..”*
the first step to acquire wealth is figuring-out your goals with heIp of a financiaI pIanner, and foIIowing through with lnteIIigent ideas; you will acquire wealth in no time and also enjoy the decision of managing your money.
I had decisions that grew my finances (gathered over 1M in 2yrs) with heIp of my financiaI pIanner. Living the dream, hoping to retire next year.
A middle ground I found out about that I honestly like is to hike up property taxes on speculative real estate.
If the property isn't actively on the market or being activelly used then the taxes owed double on an year-by-year basis.
This would prevent speculative strategies like buying up a lot of homes but renting out only a small portion of them.
Or listing them for prices nobody is willing to buy them at.
There's also the very big issues of commercial real estate, especially offices. A lot of those buildings are either owned by higher ups of the company to extract profits as rent payments. Or by the companies to add asset value to their balance sheet.
With WFM being an attractive cost saving options for competitors those offices are going to lose a lot of value in the eyes of institutions because it's paper-only.
Lets not have the government manage our investments with absurd tax policies. Lets just have fair and simple taxes, and have the government leave us alone otherwise. Once you start down the dark micromanage path, you will see that the first idea didn't work, then the knives come out, and this stuff gets insanely complicated, creating tons of new loopholes, and unexpected outcomes that are not what you want, as everyone just repositions their stuff to avoid all the unjust high taxes.
I prefer a vacancy tax as well as sales taxes or consumption taxes to replace property taxes and income taxes. No need to tax people on income and property when there are fewer and fewer people owning property or making income.
Well it needs to be more than 1% because Canada has a 1% tax for foreigners and it did basically nothing.
Vacancy tax is a good idea! How do they enforce it?
Land value tax is enough to get rid of speculators. They don't speculate with depreciating assets.
Top 3 TH-cam channels
I don't think I am that good just yet, but out of curiosity what would the other 2 be?
@@HowMoneyWorks I personally like Hoser, Plainbagel and HMW for my economics news and Task & purpose, Caspian report and Laserpig for my Geopolitical news.
@@Mahdi0_0MohammadHMW full name?
@@INDIANATHEIST526How Money Works
@@Mahdi0_0Mohammadyo dude, we have the exact same goated youtuber's
I moved from Tampa to Santa Clara a few months ago and I’m thinking of purchasing a single family home there, but with real estate prices currently through the roof, is it still a good idea to buy a home or should I invest in stocks for now and just wait for a housing market correction? Looks like NVDA, TSM and AMD and AVGO are strong buys this week.
it’s a personal decision, but according to Forbes, housing activities will remain stagnant for the most part of the year, so maybe hold off a little.
well you could put a downpayment on a home and as well diversify as much as you can into Ai, energy and big pharm. stocks like Pfizer and JnJ, ASML, MLM and S&P 500 ETFs. I’d suggest you go with a managed portfolio, but even those don’t perform so well, so it’s best you reach out to a proper fiduciary to guide you, that’s what works for my spouse and I making a whooping $738k in Q4 last year
I’m an art collector, this is not very new to me but has a nuance to it. Can you assist me?
There are many advisors to choose from. But I work with 'Leah Foster Alderman' and we've been working together for years and she's fantastic. You could check her if she meets your requirements. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with
Thanks for the recommendation, I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials, I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get.
Singapore fixed their housing relatively overnight, it's not unknown how to fix the problem.
Honestly, they didn't fix their housing problems overnight. It took a lot of foresight from their leaders to get to where they are.
Also, their approach to housing won't fly anywhere else in the world because the government owns all the land in that country/city.
@MasterChief0x72 from the perspective of a country it was overnight. Voters controll the direction of a society. Slap a 300% extra property tax on investment housing properties and use the income to buy the depressed properties/land build proper density if it doesn't exist and give people reasonable housing(assuming the area currently doesn't have reasonable housing). I wonder how many areas would suddenly fix thier housing crisis to not be targeted?
Singapore did not fix their housing.
No person has yet completed the 99 year lease.And there are no concrete explanations yet ehat will happen when they do.
Not to mention that Singapore is behind all the shine an incredibly oppressive state for anyone showing critisism to this system. Not a good example.
@RK-cj4oc a large portion of thier population was homeless or living in shacks, now they are not. "What might happen" and "government bad" don't have anything to do with the results. You middle finger locals who are fucking around and build proper density where it needs to be, it fixes the problem.
@@Josh-ks7co Yeah. Who cares what the people living their think. F*ck the peassants. Everybody knows everything should be decided by politicians without input from people who live there.
The goverment wanted Singapores population to grow my mass immigration so screw anyone that wants to keep their home. The graph has to move up.
I just did some maths... in 1912 my great-great grandparents bought a 2 bed house not dissimilar to the one I currently live in (in terms of footprint, they didn't get the last of the upgrades to the indoor plumbing until the 1970's) for 1.07 years worth of my great-great grandfather's gross annual salary. My house is valued at over 4 times my current gross annual salary - add to that the fact I work in a comfortably middle class finance job and he was a skilled labourer in an era that didn't value such work and you've got to wonder where we went wrong.
For anyone curious, I saw the mortgage paperwork when my great great grandmother died and they paid £132 for a mid terraced property in a North Yorkshire village - they lived in the same property their whole married life (excluding 2 wars).
And how many lived in the house? Since you said grandparents, I'm assuming it was a minimum of two; don't need to answer but are you living with someone in your home? If not, then we have the first disconnect in your example - you don't NEED the same size home that they had! That is part of the issue that doesn't get talked enough about. Big families used to squeeze into tiny homes. Now, single people right out of college think they should get a big home cause they want one.
I don't know the houses in question but I think there is some serious stretching of the not dissimilar aspect.
In 1912 I'm presuming no electricity, by your account it's got limited to no plumbing, the heat is likely a coal stove, minimal insulation.
These things are hella expensive. If it's just a structure, there are 2br prefab structures available for under 40k. Log cabin kits likewise are frequently under a moderate annual salary. From that standpoint, it's likely easy to get a comparable house for a comparable amount. It's when we look at modern amenities (electrical, plumbing, climate control, insulating, siding) along with 21st century space desires that costs suddenly really start to increase.
Again, dunno the buildings, and I'm American so further removed, but it's very fraught making direct comparisons to housing from 100 years ago.
Because so many people overpaid for homes even while loan rates were low, I believe there will be a housing catastrophe because these people are in debt. If housing costs continue to drop and, for whatever reason, they can no longer afford the property and it goes into foreclosure, they have no equity since, even if they try to sell, they will not make any money. I believe that many individuals will experience this, especially given the impending mass layoffs and rapidly rising living expenses.
I advise you to invest in stocks to balance out your real estate, Even the worst recessions offer wonderful buying opportunities in the markets if you're cautious. Volatility can also result in excellent short-term buy and sell opportunities. This is not financial advice, but buy now because cash is definitely not king right now!
You're correct! With the help of an investment coach, I was able to diversify my 450K portfolio across markets and produce slightly more than $830K in net profit from high dividend yield equities, ETFs, and bonds.
My portfolio has been in the gutter for the entire year, so I started researching new ways to profit in the market, but everything I tried just seemed to miss the mark. Please let us know the name of your financial advisor?
‘’Aileen Gertrude Tippy’’ is her name. She is regarded as a genius in her area and works for Empower Financial Services. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thanks a lot for this suggestion. I needed this myself, I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
The problem with the Georgist system is that there is not any check on raising the "land tax" to such a point that it becomes confiscation of built property other than people investing effort to fight the assessment. The amount of effort that they will invest is proportional to their value of their entire property, so the Georgist system would evolve to just being a property tax.
Cool story bro. Got any thoughts on how that negatively effected the economy of Hong Kong? 🇭🇰
I'll wait.
That’s exactly what would happen.
Thats a slippery slope argument. Bc we make A sure we are going to make B. There is no reason the think this would happen, why isnt income tax 90%? Bc if we already have it whats stopping the gov to put it at 90%? Its the exact same argument youre doing and as you can see it hasnt happened
@@joelimbergamo639 That is not a slippery slope it is a domino effect.
@@thetapheonix so, how do you explain income taxes nit being 100%? Bc its exactly the same "domino effect" that has been falling for 300y and it still hasnt happened
Singapore already solved this issue by creating rent to own where it is taken out of your paycheck until it is paid off.
a bit socialist but completely understandable considering their connections with China
@@iller3 I am thinking that Singapore is their testing ground for risky policy.
@@iller3 Isn't Singapore richer per capita than the United States?
Singapore is a small island; the effects of its policies would be different virtually anywhere else.
sounds like a mortgage with nicer branding.
Canada just announced that, to "support first time buyers," theyre going to increase the limit on insurable mortgages and allow 30 year mortgages for new homes or first time buyers. Their solution to make the market "more accessible" is to increase the price you can charge without a proper down payment and make the term longer. Their method to get more people in the market is just to allow people to incur even more debt than before.
this is not a problem of lack... its a market manipulation. there are plenty of places to live, theyre for sale or for rent and they are empty because a private company is setting rates with an algorithm and theyve influenced over 50% of the market, they cornered the market on house pricing so they could get their cut without doing the deal!
The thing with the land tax is that if you don't subscribe to Georgism and just want the "f your investment" effect, all you need to do is make family homes tax free. Basically, if you own a single home you don't have to pay the land tax on it. But you must pay an increasing rate on subsequent land you buy or land used for comercial endeavors. Also, removing restrictions on what kind of houses can be built where will incentivize people to make more building and multi-familiy homes that will increase supply.
That would effectivelbe a subsidy for sprawl, specially in expensive areas.
Zoning reform , a national ban on single family only zoning and mandatory lawns (allow people to build rentals on lawns) introduce employment conscription for the unemployed (if a war breaks out especially either draft , build homes or find a job) there are way too many restrictions
Just limit the amount of homes a single taxed entity can have. That way people can Airbnb and corporations can't buy all the houses.
You can buy homes and corporations have below 1% of single homes.
Suddenly 1 million LLC’s are made overnight
More entities will just be invented, it's just a paper formality. We'd really have to limit homeownership with non-human individuals on the title.
@@doujinflip I would go even farther than that. Outlaw anyone buying a single family home unless they are going to occupy it for at least two years, and limit home purchases to one per person. There’s no reason for anyone to own more than one house except to fleece others.
@@doujinflip not as of now, people can also buy with grants and stop complaining, they are their own problems
So Georgism would solve the unaffordability of buying a house by actively punishing people who try to buy land for non-income-generating purposes like living, and promoting literally any other building project except for houses?
We already do this with property taxes, they just don't make as much sense economically or ethically. There's nothing that says people have to pay more in net taxes, you just balance the numbers so that the average homeowner isn't really affected but the guy who owns a bunch of derelict lots around town is screwed (actually he's not screwed, he can just sell)
Georgism makes housing more affordable because it encourages efficient use of land, and therefore has the potential to drastically increase supply of housing units. Unfortunately zoning laws would continue to make housing unaffordable by artificially restricting supply.
The core of Georgism is to capture wealth created by the community and return it to the community rather than allowing it to be privatized by land speculators, and also to reduce the burden or even eliminate all other taxes i.e. the socialization of privately created wealth through payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes etc...
Georgism also has the bonus of increasing wages and dampening the effect of severe boom-bust cycles. Land speculation can be tied to economic hardship. If you want to learn more you can read Progress and Poverty by Henry George. I know there are free PDFs of the book available online.
The idea is to punish people who buy lots of land and do nothing with it. If instead of property taxes and national taxes, you paid a single land tax of roughly the same amount, you wouldn't even know. Meanwhile the corporation buying up a ton of vacant lots and waiting for their value to go up gets bled dry.
Yea, maximally economically efficient use of land craps on things like parks, playgrounds, sports, preserves, green space, etc...Why would I want a system that encourages building up every lot for max profit?
The price of land in non-crowded areas would adjust to meet the tax. But yes, there would be a one-time discontinuity. I have a piece of rural land (purchased at essentially zero demand) that cost $65K but only carries $1K in taxes. Its tax basis would have to go down. A lot.
I think the land value tax is profound and reflects a truth about reality, the idea that we're all borrowers of the commons. I feel such a deep longing listening to this video. Such a simple idea that's aligned with truth could have such deep positive impacts. But all the forces of the powers that be oppose this idea and lie about its implications.
Anyone interested in knowing more about this should read Sacred Economics.
Houses in my area 5 years ago that were selling for 250k to 300k are now being resold for 800k to 1mil
The whole talk about "reverse" market crash (real estate and stock market) basically argues that we are nowhere near done with inflation and that we might actually experience "hyperinflation" in the near future combined with accelerating poverty levels across the nation or going thru a historical economic depression...those are the extreme conditions that have produced the reverse market crashes in most examples I've seen. I personally don't see anything that extreme coming, but who knows.
Focus on two key objectives. First, stay protected by learning when to sell stocks to cut losses and capture profits. Second, prepare to profit when the market turns around.I recommend you seek the guidance a broker or financial advisor.
Stocks are pretty unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Strategists have been aiding folks in recording gains over 250k just in a matter of months, so I think there are alot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you have someone who knows where to look like i do.
think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Finding financial advisors like Annette Christine Conte who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
I greatly appreciate it. I'm fortunate to have come upon your message because investing greatly fascinates me. I'll look Terri Annette Moore up and send her a message. You've truly motivated me. God's blessings on you.
It’s kinda interesting because I was having a similar conversation about this, my point was, if people just agreed to not be greedy and began to sell their homes for what it’s actually worth and honest people with no intention to sell, rather just want to live there buy then 50% of this issue would be solved, the other 50% is corporations like BofA/blackrock (same company btw), and vanguard, and McDonald’s need to stop being able to buy land and homes in residence zoned areas. It’s just wrong for these corporations and people to make money off us by dangling overpriced homes over our face and teasing us to buy and if not the alternative is a used shipping container or tiny prebuilt home.
I would totally be onboard with the Georgism land tax idea if we as land owners actually had the option to build more than a single family dwelling on the land we own.
It's the biggest single biggest problem in Australia, the zoning, the second being our ridiculous environmental laws(they don't stop development, they just slow it down and cost a fortune to comply with). Of course our incredibly high immigration rate is a whole other issue, but it wouldn't be if we were just allowed to build enough to meet the demand.
I think an understated advantage of the land tax is that it would align the goals of landowners and homeowners with better zoning policy. Right now, landowners and homeowners are incentivized towards NIMBYism in order to keep the supply of housing low, and landowners and developers can be pretty politically active within their community. I think if a land value tax is actually implemented, we'd see a lot of interest groups suddenly on board with better zoning instead weaponizing environmental law, historical preservation, etc.
@@IronWilliam that is certainly the case in urban areas, especially areas with lots of older people that don't want their neighbourhood to change. But there is also the issue of town and state level planners that only trickle feed land available for development. Due to the map they drew up in an office somewhere far far away and often years ago, one large property can become a housing estate while a similar large property can't, not until another ten to twenty years goes by at any rate. They do this deliberately to limit supply. By limiting it they ensure house and land prices keep increasing as demand is never met.
I wouldn't be against the idea if the supply and demand was at least close, but in my area housing availability is so low that we have had people offered full time employment have to turn down the offers because they couldn't find anywhere to live in the area. Sadly town planning is often done a decade in advance, so when growth increases faster than forecast housing can't keep up. If we had a true free market then it wouldn't be an issue, but town planning holds everything back.
The reality is that a land value tax with dividend model already takes into account all the elements of fairness you would want of a land value tax system.
Don’t tax people on their primary residence? That’s just an unequal subsidy on people that have their primary residence on more valuable land.
Make the tax progressive? Now you’re incentivizing splitting ownership of land over members of families to decrease the ownership per person as much as possible.
Why a part of me would love to sit down every citizen and read them Progress and Poverty as a bed time story, we can’t give up hope that LVT and pigouvian taxes are the only fair and just way to run an economy. I’m going to keep fighting to implement them.
Thanks for doing a video on this subject!
I came across a book recently called "Land is a Big Deal" by Lars Doucet that was basically P&P for a modern audience. Check it out!
"Don’t tax people on their primary residence?" - Primary residence is so vague it could be the size of those huge Hawaii compounds of billionaires? Are you suggesting those dont get taxed?
@@jaad9848 I'm arguing the same thing. Any exception to the LVT is just an unjust subsidy.
@@jaad9848 I'm arguing against the idea of not taxing people's primary residence, for the exact reason you list.
LVT🎉🎉🎉 Here we go boys!! The revolution will take place from behind a calculator. Progress and Povertry ought to be mandatory reading in schools. If it isn't why can't we start advertising for it everywhere? Get it into the public discussion. Because it can stand its own on it's own.
The title already left me puzzled so the video will probably blow my mind😅
Context: construction sector is a MASSIVE part of many economies. Switching from 1-2 floor suburbia to 3-5 floor one would only increase the amount of labour and materials involved in the sector, not decrease it. More jobs in construction, mining and heavy industry, more property to purchase. Idk how fixing housing for americans can do anything but grow the economy. This IS the economy. Economy at its basic is combination of what humans can do and what they want in return. The more people are involved, the higher their productivity, the bigger the economy. So yeah, I'm puzzled and hopefully the video clear that one out😅
I'm all for building higher density housing except in our area we're running into a water shortage issue. Our aquifer has enough theoretically but not if we still want our local spring fed river which is a huge part of the appeal of our town. Higher density housing means more people per acre all using water for showers, dishwashers, washing machines, drinking, etc. How does an area with more limited water supply allow for affordable housing without further straining the water supply?
NMBY
@@WanderingExistence
I’m typically against NIMBYs, but he has a point in this case. We don’t want to oversaturate areas incapable of sustaining large populations.
You wanna do that in areas that can.
@@cryptarisprotocol1872water is dirt cheap. Most water consumption is in agriculture, which is not an urban issue. Just raise prices to cover the cost of building desalination or importing from pipelines.
What's the annual rainfall in your area? I'm off-grid on half a metre of rainfall per annum, and it's enough to run a household on what lands on my roof. An urban area should be collecting and processing all the runoff from paved surfaces like roads and footpaths too.
@@cryptarisprotocol1872 thanks and that's my point. The problem is our area is overpopulated for the amount of water needed if having a local spring fed river is still important, which I think it is. There's such a thing as "too many people" for an area to sustain which is why I asked what we should do.
Just make a tax that scales with how many properties you own. Your primary residence is tax-free after that it goes up by 30% (or whatever number) per property
That punishes rental companies and drives up the rent, decreasing savings and increasing the barrier to buying a home
@iwatchwithnoads7480 that's the point. Rental companies largely shouldn't exist.
@@rainyriderr1112 I've been a renter all my life. Rental companies mostly provide better and faster service and cheaper rent than private owners.
I have experience with both.
Housing crisis or home crisis is not limited to "home ownership crisis". Remember that
@@rainyriderr1112why? They usually give faster and better service at cheaper rate, prevent sprawling and better manage high density. I have experience with both them and private owners as a renter all my life.
The problem is housing/home, not limited to "home ownership".
And why would you support driving up the rent, decreasing savings and increasing the barrier to buying a home? Is it because you own a home and cannot support any policy that may prevent growth of your equity?
@@iwatchwithnoads7480 I'm a renter as well and don't see your point. Largely the issue right now is there aren't enough homes. How would my originally stated policy of flooding the market with homes for sale drive up the price and increase the barrier to entry?
mandate that every new planned community have both integrated medium and high density housing in it for middle and lower income people. It will be spooooooky for those rich people to live near the people that built their expensive homes, but it is better for society to have multiple economic strata living in close proximity. We just need a developer to take a chance and have a tiny bit of vision, maybe the single family homeowners could be part owners of the apartments in the planned communities, which would give them a financial incentive to move there in the first place.
A Land Tax would absolutely be regressive, punishing workers far more than wealthy land owners. Sure, wealthy land owners would need to find new loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but more than likely, they would just pass the cost of the Land Tax directly onto their tenants. Most working class people already only pay a small amount in income tax each year after standard deductions, and they'd still be on the hook for "silent" taxes such as medical insurance. The property tax itself would then just be one additional deterrent to working class land ownership, and it would push a majority of working people into renting, where they will likely pay just as much or more in higher rental costs than they saved from not having to pay income tax.
Rents already are charged as high as the market will bear. Attempting to pass the extra tax along is admitting to the IRS that the land is actually more valuable than what you said it's worth. Now the IRS is demanding extra back taxes and fines. Oh and if you try to get the tenant to pay you in cash, now the IRS is going to have questions on where you're getting that money since obviously, you have something to hide
@@Demopans5990 Sure, but we're still back to the old, "It takes money to make money." model. Just as many social democracies have eliminated sales tax on essential goods in order to make them less regressive, the only way to prevent a "Land Tax" from being regressive is to eliminate or significantly reduce the Land Taxes paid on properties used solely as primary residences.
What I see more likely is that land-owners would be incentivized to push zoning changes to allow business development, not rent. Why build apartments when you can build some new "hybrid-friendly" office space and charge even higher rents without the possibility of "awful, hard to evict" tenants?
The one thing people who are newer to Georgism never seem to understand is that land tax can be scalable. The government could just as easily tax people who have more than 2 houses at an exponential rate, pushing real estate investors out of the market more easily, and downturn the idea that owning multiple houses is a good thing. As capitalist as the concept is, it definitely would aid everyone but investors and encourage a pull away from low density development.
Well then it wouldn't be a land tax, it would just be a Properties multiplier with a misleading name
@@iller3 Land Value Tax is inherently a progressive tax. Property taxes are separate in taxing individual property, and not individual land. If property taxes did actually scale with property values, then yes, property tax would be preferential, but it’s almost never that way. The guy in the highrise almost always subsidizes the single family home dweller in every city.
I think that would be less preferable to a regular land value tax. High density housing is sometimes supplied by big investors. You don't want to punish people or businesses that have many units just because they're big
In cities and the suburbs around them, the vacancy rates are small and the supply inelastic. Demand-side subsidies will therefore just allow owners to jack up prices. Similar reasoning applies to college. It's just like how in an economy with little slack, printing more money just makes things more expensive.
If there are more people in need of housing than there are houses, then you need to have more houses built to solve that problem. You can't loan-program your way out of it.
Back in the day, when I purchased my first home to live-in; that was Miami in the early 1990s, first mortgages with rates of 8 to 9% and 9% to 10% were typical. People will have to accept the possibility that we won't ever return to 3%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
I advise you to invest in stocks to balance out your real estate, Even the worst recessions offer wonderful buying opportunities in the markets if you're cautious. Volatility can also result in excellent short-term buy and sell opportunities. This is not financial advice, but buy now because cash is definitely not king right now!
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone want to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
I will be happy getting assistance and glad to get the help of one, but just how can one spot a reputable one?
Actually its a Lady. Yes my go to person is a ‘Sharon Marissa Wolfe '. So easy and compassionate Lady. You should take a look at her work.
I found her page by searching for her entire name online. After that, I emailed her and we set up a meeting so we could talk; I'm currently waiting on her response.
I plan to retire at 62 in another country outside the US that is free, safe and very cheap with a high quality of life. I could fully just rely on only my SS if I wanted to when that times arrives but I'll also have at least one pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific lnvestment account with my Abby Joseph Cohen my FA. Retiring comfortably in the US these days is almost impossible. I honestly don't understand why people don't move to another country when they get older in retirement. It seems everybody has excuses for almost anything to not take action to better their situation.
How do i reach her, if you don't mind me asking?
I’m planning to move to the philipines
Been debt free for two years thanks to Abby Joseph Cohen Services. So sad to see my friends in their 40s with car loans, mortgages and credit card debt.
Abby Joseph Cohen Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
This guy just solved every economic issue and wrapped in a bow in 15 minutes this needs to be seen more
A big issue with Georgist undeveloped land taxation is it just incentivizes sprawl. It would definitely prompt people to sell off undeveloped Land and more homes could built but this is by no means a silver bullet to the housing issue.
it really depends on the tax structure. taxes don't have to be exactly proportional to the thing being taxed. the standard deduction means that your effective tax rate is 0% even if you made $10,000. we can do the same thing to exempt lower value greenfields and keep them undeveloped. the main benefit of georgism is no matter how you structure it, it will likely result in development of high value land near urban centers that have a major housing shortage.
It doesn't incentivize sprawl at all. It incentivizes density.
You just won a free copy of Progress and Poverty my dude.
We arnt in a crises. This is a result of deliberate policy. Economic growth, figure the rest out later.
Yes, real median household income has increased nearly 18% in just the past 10 years. A greater percentage of people under the age of 35 are homeowners today than they were 30 years ago. Prices wouldn't be going up if people couldn't afford them. Even corporations buying as investments couldn't make money if people couldn't afford the rent.
The land value tax, as described at 7:42, would be horrible for people like me, who want a whole lot of privately owned land all over the country to remain undeveloped, to provide habitat for native wildlife. Mammals, insects, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc., all do much better when land is left in a natural state. Any policy that incentivises landowners to develop their property hurts wildlife. We need to get our priorities straight so that these atrocities are not committed against nature.
Not to mention landlords just passing the extra cost to tenants making saving money even harder…
You know what will be even more horrible for you? Communist revolution because land reforms aren't made. See the history of this with other nations.
@lars6298 and they don't pass along property taxes now?
@@dennisthemenace2341 I don't understand your question, or how it relates to what I wrote. Can you please reword your question, so that I can understand what it is that you are asking me?
@@TomReichner which one?
Fun fact: If you look at the average price of a home in value of gold, interestingly it really hadn't increased much from 1971 since the US dollar left the gold standard.
That means the US dollar inflation has been out of control since then. If we made the US dollar a representative currency again instead of fiat, we could reestablish that stability.
Although, many like Ron Paul have suggested that the representative standard should be based off a diverse portfolio of scarce assets instead of just gold to avoid an economic crash should, for example, a large new source of gold be found (like asteroid mining or something) which dramatically reduces the value of gold.
All of these people saying they don’t want housing as asset don’t understand that the value of homes is one of the reasons why Americans have a lot of wealth especially elderly people
That "wealth" isn't liquid though, so in order for it to be utilized requires the owner to sell their home or use it as collateral to take on debt. The best part about owning a home is simply having a place to live that isn't constantly sucking your away your liquid wealth away in the form of a mortgage or rent payment. And even then homeowners still have to pay taxes and insurance. Only those who have weaseled their way into a confortable position of parasitic "passive income" can have the luxury of simply occupying a comfortable living space without the constant elrisk of becoming homeless if they don't perpetually pay tribute to some entity or another.
The problem with building more houses is that increasing supply would cause wealthy homeowners to not have their homes' equity increase as much as it will if no new houses are built. If I own a $900,000 home, I want it to be worth $1.8 million in 7 years, not just $1.2 or $1.3 million.
The first thing we need to get rid of are the tax breaks on capital gains when selling a home. If anything we should increase the taxes on gains so that home owners have less of an advantage compared to new buyers
What a stupid idea. How about you start doing something with your life and buy a home. Instead of advocating theft because you are jealous.
That would probably keep owner's from selling.
@@Technotranceism That's fine. I don't like this argument that owners need to sell, if they sell they are also out buying. The supply/Demand cancel out.
The point is property owners have an advantage over non-owners. This is also how you remove it from being an investment. If people make less money off of appreciation then they won't buy it just to make money. Homes are shelter, not investments
@@EddieChamo they're always an investment. It's just a investment you can live in. Some people buy and sell, so that they can eventually afford a much higher price home. If you can make $10k-$50k or more, off of every home you buy and sell, just think about what you can afford with the initial investment money you started with. Let's use an example $200k. This isn't for everyone, but you get the idea. Those who buy them at the inflated cost, is what helps drive the cost up for others.
@@Technotranceism I'm saying it SHOULDN'T be that way. People NEED houses to live, but look where we are. Homes are too expensive for new homeowners to buy them.
There's also one major thing you're missing, it doesn't even help home owners because ALL homes go up in price. So if your house doubles in price, then so does the home you were going to buy.
So let's say you buy a home and it's 200k, then goes up to 400k.
Then you buy a house that's 500k, BUT what you're missing is that house USED to cost 250k. So in reality, you would have saved 50k.
In fact you lose way more because of all the commission fees and whatnot. Oh and of course let's not forget that your property taxes will be higher.
If we create a system where homes don't go up but stay the same (with inflation at least) then everyone will actually save more money, owners and new buyers
Density doesn't equal affordability. The problem is that a lot of people want to live in the same place. That is why NYC is very un- affordable even though it is very dense. The phenomenon is called induced demand where an increase in the supply of a good or service leads to an increase in its consumption. That is especially true now when mega corporations like Blackrock are buying homes left and right.
Cost to build a house is more or less the same across the country. The variables are cost of the land and cost of regulations.
If you want affordable housing you need Sprawl. Build more roads, more mass transit. Aim to get gas and cars cheaper. Prohibit mega corporations like Blackrock from scooping all the homes. Invest in neglected neighborhoods and Towns.
People follow work. If good jobs are found not only in major cities people will have more incentive to live in small towns (cheaper land cost). Also, traditional property taxes and Land Value Tax are a wealth taxs and will push people out their homes when Value of land or homes goes up.
Sprawl is an unaffordable luxury - most cities simply can't afford to maintain even more roads and services for so few people per unit area. You need at least medium density - terrace/townhouse development - to be affordable, and yes, it needs public transport so you're not trying to fit a two car garage into every three bedroom dwelling.
Banning corporations from owning houses, 100%. That desperately needs to happen.
@@tealkerberus748 Sprawl is perfectly affordable. If you look at the budget of most towns Schools and Police are the biggest expenses. That doesn't mean you can have little more density in Town center or Main road. Towns will overspend if given a chance regardless how dense the town is.
@@bobsontheepic42the issue is the infrastructure replacement cost, that does not occur every year but over time the town will become financially insolvent
@@pr0wnageify infrastructure is not that expensive and increased density simply means faster deterioration of said infrastructure. Again, if you loom at city like NYC infrastructure is terrible even though it has high density. Mismanagement of funds by local government leads to deteriorating infrastructure.
Tokyo, 38 millions population, the median rent for a 1K apartment (1 bedroom and separate kitchen) is about ¥76,000 which is around $600 per month.
I love that at 1:40 you mentioned exactly what will happen. Government intervention doesn't work.
The last time real estate prices saw a significant dip, the economy experienced an unprecedented decade plus long economic boomed driven by consumers having a lot more spending money.
That's not how i remember 2008
@@32BitJunkie 2008 was a decade long in your memory?
Where was this? I remember gut wrenching unemployment and a decade of trying to recover from being in construction and Almost losing everything
Land value tqx exists here in Brazil. It just makes everything more expensive because it goes to the person renting it. The landlord just passes on the cost.
It's one of the most stupid taxes💩
What an excellent video! I was looking forward to hearing how government owned affordable non market housing plays a role in the housing crisis but you never got to it
Seems like a land tax would incentivize suburban sprawl and the loss of all green spaces as owners are incentivized to develop every square inch of land. Can't imagine what this would do to farmers.
Farmers already lose a lot from suburban sprawl. I do believe Oregon implemented a city limit law that prohibited urban sprawl expansions into rural areas.
Those are somewhat contradictory statements. Part of the reason we sprawl so much now is because we horrendously waste land in urban centers. So making better use of that land would mean less need to develop on the periphery.
The trick with LVT is that land value isn't the same all over, but based on the demand for the land's location (or mineral wealth, but that's more of a niche case). Land in downtown Manhattan is worth way more than land in rural Wyoming because lots of people want to live there. This is mostly because towns and cities (in theory) provide more amenities, which the LVT goes to help pay for, creating a logical payback cycle (i.e., cities and towns getting back the wealth that they themselves generate by providing for their citizens). Conversely, a farmer would be paying way less per acre in LVT than someone in a city. And if their LVT does go up due to demand, it's a strong indicator that said land may be better used for other things. It really is a very clean solution, compared to the knotted web of broken incentives and regulations that we have today.
@@Descriptor413 imho the biggest issue with a LVT is how to determine the value.
So many opportunities for corruption...
@@Robbedem To be fair, that's already a huge problem with property taxes today, and really any system. In a way, LVT actually provides fewer opportunities for corruption, since two lots next to each other should theoretically be taxed at the same value per area. Compare that with having to determine the value of a building, and there's way less leeway for error.
@@Descriptor413 ok, that's true.
2e problem with LVT is what to do with people being forced out of their house because land value went up. (f.e. because a park was built nearby)
I suppose in a way that's the intended effect. But Many people will consider that to be wrong.
Hell yeah, Georgism!
MAGA = Make America Georgist Already
8:45 I feel like the point being made here is overshadowed by the fact that housing prices raised 100% and above in a year. Part of this may be because this is average home price and not median home price but I simply don’t see a world where a tax will discourage buying an asset with that high of potential for gains and I think looking at the axis helps frame this as problem to do with housing and not income.
What about giving incentives to people to move to rural areas, and to businesses to establish there?
Logistics. Needs permanent signs of residents moving to a location. Then you need infrastructure to move goods quickly out the area
There are people who do so here, and take an hour long commute if necessary.
The solution is the government builds millions of homes until rent is 20% of take home pay and mortgage payments are 15% of take home pay. People can own homes of they want, like collectors own baseball cards and the wealthy can trade luxury things among themselves. For everyone else that just wants a place to live, there needs to be government provided starter homes like condos that are small in square footage and create population density.
It's going to come to a point where the investment class lobbys companies to provide housing for their employees like slaves
🤦🤦🤦 There are more peopleless homes than homeless people. Creating more government-funded construction is just going to lead to more rich people owning homes if you don't create progressive taxation, or disincentive, on excessive utilization of the housing supply. You're just inflating the landlord/ bank ownership market.
You guys keep trying to augment the capitalist system as if that's going to help... No it just creates augmentations of a bad system into a different bad system. Change the system.
@@WanderingExistence No, it would be a parallel market. Government would supply homes to first time owners and the private market would exclusively be for luxury and anything more than the basic small condo in a large condo complex.
There is no market for the common baseball card but a signed card from an iconic player is valuable. The government would provide the common cards and the housing market is for the home equivalent of a collector.
@@nbonasoro Free or with loans?
The land value tax would push the working class out of home ownership entirely as competing market forces disenfranchise them economically from having the income to pay the land tax (on top of a mortgage and mortgage interest). We’d be right back where we started with everything owned by corporations that gouge everyone within an inch of bankruptcy for housing and a stagnant economy where no one has any purchasing power.
Everyone wants housing to not be an investment yet the reason they want to buy a house is to store wealth.
Georgism doesn’t work unless you have little or no zoning restrictions. Either you collapse land values with zoning restrictions and get low tax rates or have no zoning restrictions and high tax rates, but at the price of having super high density development all over.
I would argue that high density wouldn't be the only outcome in a no-zoning LVT situation. There's legit market demand for low density housing. It's just that under LVT, the true societal cost of that kind of living would be reflected in the cost of living there, removing the subsidy that exists currently. You'd either build those homes in lower value area (low value due to less infrastructure, and thus less tax burden), or if somebody really wanted a house in a very high demand area, they would have to pay for the privilege (since they're preventing more people from being able to live there). In other words, it's an actual market again.
@@Descriptor413Yeah, the market will get skewed but will find a new equilibrium.
What we’re describing is basically Houston where you can have mansions next door to industrial offices next to oil refineries. Not all the highest density but perhaps the highest use, and Texas taxes them accordingly.
@@MichaelChengSanJose Houston's not even quite the free-for-all that people assume. While they don't have zoning, they do make extensive use of land covenants to restrict certain forms of development. Not quite as bad, thankfully, but still limiting. From what I recall, neighborhoods on the periphery of Houston do use zoning still, though.
Plus, Houston makes other mistakes, such as overbuilding highways, which opens up cheap land on the periphery, and thus super sprawl. Not to mention having horrible traffic, despite having like 16 lane highways (depending on how you count frontage roads).
They do have a surprisingly decent regional bus system, though!
Honestly - if you are looking to sell the Land Value Tax idea (and also have it work once implemented) don't have it as a new tax added to the books -- have it as a replacement tax - i.e. taxes on [insert taxes to be removed here] will be stopped altogether and Replaced by the LVT. Otherwise? All the politicians who want more money to spend will do is add the LVT on, keeping everything else and bleeding us more than they already are.
Young men poor cannot afford marriage if they do get married somehow they'll be divorced as financial issues are one of the leading causes for divorce. This is today's reality and can't be compared with pre-social media days.
If poor men choose to remain unmarried what are they going to live for, what is their purpose?
What about Public Housing? Instead of middle man’s trying to profit of people that need a house to live in we may let the government take over. Those houses don’t have to be sold for a profit
We already have public housing provided by the government for people who can't afford it in the U.S. They're called housing projects or "the projects" by those that live there. They're crime ridden hell holes that resemble 3rd world African countries more than anything else. Crime is rampant and the area is controlled by gangs. Police refuse to go there because it's too dangerous for the officers. Don't even think of trying to live in one if you're not black, or maybe Hispanic.
Look into how they handle it in Vienna, Austria. Their public housing is astounding.
Singapore too. Something like 3/4ths of people there opt to live in government-built housing.
That is vulnerable to corruption.
In Romania there is a tiny program like this, 4-20 flats per city which are supposed to be used by very poor families but instead entire flats are given to the mayor or one of his relatives/friends so that they can subrent it out to other people for more than the market rate.
@@doujinflip Singapore has close to 89% home ownership rate. Much more than the 3/4ths you mentioned.
This video is the best summary of the issues and best solutions that I've seen. Definitely going to share and hope it spreads. Cheers
If you are not in the financial market space right now, you are making a huge mistake. I understand that it could be due to ignorance, but if you want to make your money work for you... prevent inflation
Thanks for continuing updates I'd rather trade the crypto market as it's more profitable. I make a good amount of money per week even though I barely trade myself.
A lot of people still make massive profit from the crypto market, all you really need is a relevant information and some ‹professional advice. ‹it's totally inappropriate for investors to hang on while suffering from dip during significant
You trade also?, I
No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance
From my personal financial advisor
..
Hallelujah!!! I’m blessed and favored with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and support the work of God and the church. For Your glory, LORD! HALLELUJAH!
Oh really? Tell me more! Always interested in hearing stories of successes.
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
Wow, that’s inspiring. How can I contact Ana Graciela Blackwelder?
connect with her through
Of course you can, build more houses. The issue is we don't elect officials that support medium density, mixed use building developments and people insist on living in stupidly expensive existing cities.