[dead]
Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2...
by basetop on Thursday May 02, 2019 @07:59AM
(#19806892)
No need for name calling. With a stable population, no tax incentives, no legal or government incentives, etc, your home is a depreciating asset. If you've owned a home, you realize it is constantly breaking down and you have to constantly fix it. A home isn't a productive asset like a business. It isn't making you any money "productively". The only way homes become appreciating asset is purely through external manipulation. Increasing population, limiting development, tax incentives, legal incentives, etc. This isn't a secret.
Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2...
by bluGill on Thursday May 02, 2019 @10:54AM
(#19808528)
It doesn't matter if you rent or buy: either way you have to pay for the maintenance costs. If you rent you don't directly pay it, but you still pay for it. As such maintenance costs are not a factor.
A house should ideally be a stable investment: the value should keep pace with inflation.
Most people pay more for house maintenance than required (updating a perfectly good kitchen...). That is an investment in quality of life.
Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2...
by sctb on Thursday May 02, 2019 @12:20PM
(#19809544)
Since you mostly just break the guidelines here we've banned the account. We'd like to unban you if you'd email [email protected] and commit to using this site as intended.
The only true purpose housing serves is shelter. That's it.
Any other purpose is artificial. Housing normally is a depreciating asset, like cars. Normally it shouldn't be a hedge against anything, including inflation. It normally shouldn't be an asset of speculation, no more than tulips or bitcoin. And as for security and stability, you can get that from renting ( especially if you live in rent controlled apartments ).
The idea of a house as an asset or investment is due to government and business policy decisions. Increasing immigration, limiting development via zoning laws, creating tax incentives, advertising pushing home ownership, laws favoring home owners and landlords over renters, etc.
All the premises we believe are premises we are taught. Your premise is just as false as anyone elses. It's entirely artificial. Policy decisions could make renting more favorable than owning. Policy decisions could actually make owning a home near a coal mine more stable than owning a home in silicon valley. Policy decisions could make home prices decline considerably by encouraging overdevelopment so that supply outstrips demand.
Fundamentally, as I stated before, the only purpose of owning a house is shelter. Everything else are "false" premises we've been taught.