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.

@nabibunbillah1839

3 күн бұрын

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.

@gabriealdrue

3 күн бұрын

Won’t georgism harm farmers? I mean they need a lot of land to efficiently grow crops.

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

@@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

@user-lm6me2tz9t

3 күн бұрын

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.

@user-zu5do6ri6r

3 күн бұрын

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.

@andresgarciacastro1783

3 күн бұрын

Yes!!! I don't fucking care for prices to fall. Because i still have a place to livee

@garythecyclingnerd6219

3 күн бұрын

Too bad, it is and it’s never going to get better.

@christianmoore7932

3 күн бұрын

Then there is no incentive to build them if they aren't worth alot

@jonathanabgrall6075

3 күн бұрын

@@christianmoore7932 except one of the reasons for the current housing crisis is a lack of homes being built?

@garythecyclingnerd6219

3 күн бұрын

@@jonathanabgrall6075 Getting rid of entrenched politicians is incredibly difficult and SCOTUS just effectively legalized bribery this session. I admire your child like bliss

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.

@JodyBruchon

3 күн бұрын

The video covers that. It's literally the entire point of the video. Did you watch the video?

@HowMoneyWorks

3 күн бұрын

Yeah I don’t really know what you guys are doing down there

@TheBlackWaltz

3 күн бұрын

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.

@nocapproductions5471

3 күн бұрын

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.

@sbutte1127

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

As long as houses are an investment, we will never have affordable homes.

@doujinflip

3 күн бұрын

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.

@TVluver2

3 күн бұрын

Well, if you're right, then I guess we will never have affordable homes because houses will always be an investment.

@kyleolson9636

3 күн бұрын

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.

@rightwingsafetysquad9872

3 күн бұрын

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.

@MegaBruh-fr6mt

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

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.

@Natalie45152

15 сағат бұрын

She's mostly interacts on Telegrams, using the user-name...

@Natalie45152

15 сағат бұрын

@WhitneyEston

@AnthonyFisher951

15 сағат бұрын

Thanks for keeping it light and real at the same time. Much needed for us traders in times like these!

@CatherineMason425

15 сағат бұрын

It really helped trading with Whitney Eston analysis, even with the market in a downward trend. Definitely riding the market wave is a good perspective..

@MadelineKnight671

15 сағат бұрын

I appreciate the professionalism and dedication of the team behind Whitney's trade signal service.

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…

@syntheticfox_real

3 күн бұрын

Slavery

@itsJoshW

3 күн бұрын

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".

@theultimatereductionist7592

3 күн бұрын

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.

@iExploder

3 күн бұрын

I ask this all the time and people look at me like I'm blaspheming and growing horns.

@nietur

3 күн бұрын

@@itsJoshW a long duration mortgage doesn't pressure higher resell wym

I love that Patrick and Plain Bagel are his friends and they just fire shots at each other in random videos

@swaggery

3 күн бұрын

Firing shots. There's some truth to it. Patrick is making rap videos, so desperate to do anything for money.

@xellent

3 күн бұрын

@@swaggeryYeah, never expected him to sell out to big rap.

@trevinbeattie4888

3 күн бұрын

I also appreciate that he used the clip from Plain Bagel’s April Fools video

@admiralsuperior3

3 күн бұрын

😂😂 me too

@ZanathKariashi

2 күн бұрын

@@xellent he never sold out, he was always in their pocket, the finance thing was just a side hobby.

-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.

@Demopans5990

3 күн бұрын

Call them what they are, rent seekers. Henry George didn't like them, neither did Adam Smith, and obviously neither did Karl Marx

@homieinthesky8919

3 күн бұрын

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

@mggaming4624

3 күн бұрын

Those countries build dense housing, not single family homes in the middle of massive suburbs

@br0wnbrownbrown

3 күн бұрын

Saying housing is affordable in Singapore just shows you’re out of touch

@Rhaegar19

3 күн бұрын

@@Demopans5990 I prefer "economic dead weight"

If basic housing is unaffordable, the economy is already broken

@iller3

3 күн бұрын

...and it's already doomed to crash if your (country's) Currency is no longer the exclusive one used for Oil Commodities

@Hunting4Data

Күн бұрын

Hence bitcoin. Fuck government currencies and the broken corrupt fractional reserve and central banking

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.

@luchain771

3 күн бұрын

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.

@Brovider

3 күн бұрын

Hopefully you're not the president

@glint6070

3 күн бұрын

@@luchain771 That mindset is how you end up with with an oligarchy

@rchot84

3 күн бұрын

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.

@tony_5156

3 күн бұрын

To the idiots in this country that would be communism

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.

@honor9lite1337

3 күн бұрын

Ok

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

This tuber such an ideologue he completely ignores the solution. Government increasing supply.

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

It’s how the US had cheaper housing in the past

@nietur

3 күн бұрын

"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.

@notablecarrot2831

3 күн бұрын

​@@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

Thank you for bringing up this video. Financial education is indeed required for more than 70% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject..Thanks to Kristy loreca,the lady you recommended me to.....

@Lisa12696

3 күн бұрын

That's awesome!!! I know nothing about investment and I'm Keen on getting started. What are the strategies?

@Jeremy10444

3 күн бұрын

I'll advise you to work with a financial advisor....Building a good investment portfolio is more complex so I would recommend you seek

@MerylConnor

3 күн бұрын

I'm surprised you also trade with Kristy Loreca, she's the best at what she he does. At first i was afraid too before i gave it a try and realized fear kills dream more than failure.

@LucybarreraAlvarez

3 күн бұрын

just withdrew my profits a week ago, To be honest it was an amazing feeling when the profits hits my wallet I wish I could reinvest but, too much bills

@SmithNorman

3 күн бұрын

inflation has putting so many families into difficult situations, the inflation has taught people the important of multiples income

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

@theultimatereductionist7592

3 күн бұрын

Thank you to the smart Brazilian activists who no doubt fought for years and years to make that a reality!

@fernandoroberts3591

2 күн бұрын

@@theultimatereductionist7592 the plan is called minha casa minha vida and was created in 2009 during the second term of president Lula

@prettyboyjeremy

2 күн бұрын

Good! "Oh, your income is over $65,000 a year? Go away." High school drop put McDonald's worker? Absolutely this way sir!

@c182SkylaneRG

2 күн бұрын

@@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".

@DsiakMondala

Күн бұрын

@@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.

"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"

@rpospeedwagon

3 күн бұрын

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.

@kaijuultimax9407

3 күн бұрын

@@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

@SantinoDeluxe

3 күн бұрын

@@kaijuultimax9407 if all farmers turned to business men youd be eating money (im not sure whos side im on)

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

​@@SantinoDeluxe Sounds like a cash crop 🤑

@chrishan9138

3 күн бұрын

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.

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?

@aRandomPerson...

3 күн бұрын

Restructure the economy so that workers own their own means of production.

@literallyhuman5990

3 күн бұрын

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

@yensteel

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@Basta11

3 күн бұрын

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.

@oeloel2653

3 күн бұрын

And the government should also regulate less. Making the construction easier for builders

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.

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.

@ohiasdxfcghbljokasdjhnfvaw4ehr

2 күн бұрын

very true. housing investors are stealing a huge chunk of the american economy and keeping people poor.

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.

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

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.

@mangos2888

3 күн бұрын

Isn't home flipping enough of its own reward? Thoe 5 dilapidated homes do have buyers, their price is just too high

@pappaflammyboi5799

3 күн бұрын

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.

@aliannarodriguez1581

3 күн бұрын

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.

@davidw7

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

Yes, but fat chance getting governments to actually do something.

@illiiilli24601

3 күн бұрын

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.

@scottdavis3571

3 күн бұрын

Their to busy blocking or trying to force their religion on us or privatize our school.

@flinch622

3 күн бұрын

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.

@nietur

3 күн бұрын

@@illiiilli24601 how's Tokyo the cheapest? you looking at rent per sqm as well?

@kyleolson9636

3 күн бұрын

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.

Singapore fixed their housing relatively overnight, it's not unknown how to fix the problem.

@MasterChief0x72

3 күн бұрын

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.

@Josh-ks7co

3 күн бұрын

@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?

@RK-cj4oc

2 күн бұрын

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.

@Josh-ks7co

Күн бұрын

@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.

@RK-cj4oc

Күн бұрын

@@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.

housing is NOT AN ASSET. the problem is with the mindset. first and foremost.

@Georgggg

3 күн бұрын

People have rent payments as classic return on asset and you can't change it by talking otherwise.

@isaach.1135

3 күн бұрын

​@@Georgggg Talking otherwise, no. Putting in policies that would no longer allow rental properties to be nearly as lucrative as they are with the only hope of return on investment is to sell the property, yes. I'm not keen on policies directly interfering with the market or forcing behavior, but when the market is leaning towards a rental world is where I'd make an exception.

@theplaylistpsycho

3 күн бұрын

This has nothing to do with mindsets, the term "asset" has a straight forward accounting definition where houses/real estate fall under.

@kyleolson9636

3 күн бұрын

Housing is an asset. Once you own your home you only have to pay property taxes and insurance, which frees up over 25% of the average mortgage holder's budget. That has value and makes your home your second most important asset behind your investment portfolio. Housing shouldn't be considered an investment though. That is the important distinction.

@nietur

3 күн бұрын

@@isaach.1135 Rent being high is a signal from the market that housing supply is low. Changing building regulation and building more is the best solution. Expensive rent and expensive houses doesn't mean that renting out is lucrative. It's about the relation to price and rent and the difference to bonds.

They want affordable housing... as long as it's not theirs.

@juliegolick

3 күн бұрын

Or at least so long as it's not in their neighbourhood. Classic NIMBYism

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…!

@TVluver2

3 күн бұрын

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.

@ROVA00

20 сағат бұрын

@@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.

@TVluver2

16 сағат бұрын

@@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.

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.

@FullLengthInterstates

3 күн бұрын

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.

There is no fixing this issue without a collapse. It is a necessity at this point.

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

But we shouldn’t pretend that it will be anything nearly as bad as 2008

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

Home prices could drop by the exact same amount without a fraction of the ripple effects

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

The long term economic benefits would still be there tho

@kaijuultimax9407

3 күн бұрын

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.

@MegaTeeruk

3 күн бұрын

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.

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?

@Rhaegar19

3 күн бұрын

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)

@Ely-zf4yt

2 күн бұрын

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.

@ArdentMoogle

2 күн бұрын

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.

@jukesngambits

2 күн бұрын

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?

@josephfisher426

2 күн бұрын

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 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).

@commentinglife6175

2 күн бұрын

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.

@DuffTerrall

2 күн бұрын

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.

Our economy struggling with uncertainties, housing issues, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.

@fresnaygermain8180

3 күн бұрын

With the US dollar losing value to inflation and other currencies gaining traction, uncertainty looms. Yet, many still trust in the Dollar's perceived safety. Worried about my $420,000 retirement savings losing value, I seek alternative security for my money.

@yolanderiche7476

3 күн бұрын

With my demanding job, I lack time for investment analysis. For seven years, a fiduciary has managed my portfolio, adapting to market conditions, enabling successful navigation and informed decisions. Consider a similar approach.

@bernisejedeon5888

3 күн бұрын

How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financial future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?.

@yolanderiche7476

3 күн бұрын

I work with Sharon Marissa Wolfe, who is a licensed fiduciary. Just look up the name. All the information you need to work with a letter to set up an appointment is included.

@yolanderiche7476

3 күн бұрын

“Sharon Marissa Wolfe’ 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 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.

@SASMADBRUV7

3 күн бұрын

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?

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

Driving society into the ground by driving up home prices

@Iquey

2 күн бұрын

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! 😡

High desenity, medium density and SOME low desity mixed used neighborhoods that are walkable, bikeable and have fast frequent public transportation.

@baronvonjo1929

3 күн бұрын

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.

@NicksDynasty

3 күн бұрын

@@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

@NicksDynasty

3 күн бұрын

​@@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.

@itsJoshW

3 күн бұрын

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 KZread 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 KZreadrs 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.

@erikschaal4124

3 күн бұрын

​@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.

My thoughts on land value tax is that if land pays taxes then each plot of land gets a ballot to vote as well.

I remember in 2007 when I was working in real estate seeing people buy homes new from builders with the intention of selling before close of escrow to a new buyer for profit. The crash was so brutal and fast that I remember seeing a lot of these units foreclosed on with the builder plastic still on the carpet.

@NicholasHarmon-ow3jl

Күн бұрын

Since most people are accustomed to bull markets, they often find it difficult to handle downturns. However, with the right knowledge and strategy, you can profit handsomely. Yes, depending on your plans for entry and exit.

@foden700

Күн бұрын

I wholeheartedly concur; I'm 60 years old, just retired, and have about $1,250,000 in non-retirement assets. Compared to the whole value of my portfolio during the last three years, I have no debt and a very little amount of money in retirement accounts. To be completely honest, the information provided by invt-advisors can only be ignored but not neglected. Simply undertake research to choose a trustworthy one.

@brucemichelle5689.

Күн бұрын

That's fascinating. How can I contact your Asset-coach as my portfolio is dwindling?

@foden700

Күн бұрын

There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Aileen Gertrude Tippy’’ for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.

@brucemichelle5689.

Күн бұрын

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.

I also don't believe you should be paying Property Tax on your (1) Primary residence. Most normal people don't want or have any use for more than one home.

@tylerian4648

3 күн бұрын

In places like Texas their is a homestead exemption that effectively counts a flat value of a primary residence as tax free and only value past said point is taxed.

@yensteel

3 күн бұрын

In HK, you get taxed for your first home, and double the tax for the second home. Rich people still bought a collection anyways :/

@seanshomeshop325

3 күн бұрын

i mean currently i believe property taxes go to schools, if with the proposition to get rid of VAT and income tax for only property tax i'd disagree with getting rid of it for a primary residence

@teemomain8268

3 күн бұрын

@@seanshomeshop325 I strongly disagree. Especially with how incredibly bad the public education sector is doing,The children learn nothing nowadays. Also,high property taxes is the main contributor why people in my area are getting booted from their FULLY paid off homes. Its Lunacy.

@sprinkle61

3 күн бұрын

@@tylerian4648 Homestead exemption ain't shit here in TX. Even a tiny efficiency condo will have the vast majority of its value taxed as normal, so if its homestead or not it really doesn't make any difference. It does limit the tax increase to like 10 %, but then when we downturn, like now, the 10 % upwards keep coming, so eventually homesteaders pay the full load, regardless of increase limits, and 10 % increases are not small limits, so those taxes are going up to the full amount, it just may take a few years, in a melt up situation.

I am a millennial who owns his home; just paid off the last of his mortgage. I'd LOVE to see housing prices plummet. The prices only matter for those buying and selling, and if you're selling you don't need it.

@dachicagoan8185

3 күн бұрын

Me too. My house is paid off and I'm waiting for the correction so I can buy my house in a location I want to live

@marshallcapps3084

3 күн бұрын

The tax man also cares about the home price so they can tax you more

@spiderdog07

3 күн бұрын

@@marshallcapps3084 Yup this is what I learned after purchasing my home. I paid my property tax and felt pretty good and then found out about a supplemental assessment and had my property tax double because I bought my house it was now worth 50% more than it was the day before I bought it.

@JB-kx9bx

3 күн бұрын

How did you pay off your house so early? Where do you live?

@thecrimsondragon9744

3 күн бұрын

And if sellers go onto buy another property the prices will be low so the loss isn't as great as it seems.

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.

@Greghilton3

2 күн бұрын

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.

@Aarrenrhonda3

2 күн бұрын

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.

@Elkemartin213

2 күн бұрын

think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation

@Aarrenrhonda3

2 күн бұрын

Finding financial advisors like Terri Annette Moore 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.

@Elkemartin213

2 күн бұрын

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.

Americans are facing a tough time with their finances, especially concerning housing affordability and retirement savings

@cherylhills3227

10 сағат бұрын

I'm getting worried about the rising housing prices. It seems like it's becoming harder to afford a home these days

@rodgertim2881

10 сағат бұрын

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

@AliciaCrone

9 сағат бұрын

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

@V.stones

9 сағат бұрын

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

@wehrine

9 сағат бұрын

It's crucial for individuals to diversify their portfolios, seek professional financial advice, and stay informed about market trends to navigate these challenges effectively

Singapore already solved this issue by creating rent to own where it is taken out of your paycheck until it is paid off.

@iller3

3 күн бұрын

a bit socialist but completely understandable considering their connections with China

@FortuneCookieLies

3 күн бұрын

@@iller3 I am thinking that Singapore is their testing ground for risky policy.

@optick3554

2 күн бұрын

​@@iller3 Isn't Singapore richer per capita than the United States?

@josephfisher426

2 күн бұрын

Singapore is a small island; the effects of its policies would be different virtually anywhere else.

@ohiasdxfcghbljokasdjhnfvaw4ehr

2 күн бұрын

sounds like a mortgage with nicer branding.

The white elephant in the room is.... You cant have cheap houses if you build a city that only works if everyone has a car.... the zoning laws and their car-centric policies are the main problem here.

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

Who's gonna steal this _white elephant?_

@bullydungeon9631

3 күн бұрын

Using housing as an investment asset instead of a human right is the issue

@rchot84

3 күн бұрын

My city is car centric and pretty dense (the 58th most dense city in the country). It's not zoned like the suburbs though. There are convenience/grocery stores in every neighborhood. Public transport is pretty good, we have a regional train station, three lights ail stations and an airport. People still prefer cars for convenience.

@cryptarisprotocol1872

3 күн бұрын

@@bullydungeon9631 No it isn’t, it’s the OPs point.

@kabloosh699

3 күн бұрын

@@bullydungeon9631 the issue with making things that require human labor to build or provide services as human rights causes the problem of potential enslavement of those who provide that labor and services to maintain those human rights. Homes need to be built and maintained. Your right to live there is really as strong as your willingness to maintain it and you can't just demand someone else to maintain your home in the event of lack of maintenance causes you to become homeless. We also run into the issue of how much square footage is considered "reasonable" for one person to have a right to? Is it the size of a Manhattan apartment or a 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath rancher? There are so many variables to this issue of claiming housing is a human right. It's as much of a right as food is in that you have no right to it just as much you have no right to force others to provide their goods and services to you.

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.

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.

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.

@harveypolanski755

3 күн бұрын

It's not unreasonable that people want to protect the value of the largest purchase they'll ever make.

@froggamer4884

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@xanderlander8989

3 күн бұрын

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.

@coke8077

3 күн бұрын

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.

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

@aliannarodriguez1581

3 күн бұрын

Seen it happen.

@eligabeivan

3 күн бұрын

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

@The_Love_Doctor_Sean

3 күн бұрын

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.

@SigFigNewton

3 күн бұрын

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

@SCPMstudios

3 күн бұрын

@@SigFigNewtonInner cities are subsidized by the suburbs. Inner cities are almost always a tax sink. Not the other way around.

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.

@32BitJunkie

3 сағат бұрын

That's not how i remember 2008

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.

@The_Love_Doctor_Sean

3 күн бұрын

You can buy homes and corporations have below 1% of single homes.

@born2drum1

3 күн бұрын

Suddenly 1 million LLC’s are made overnight

@doujinflip

3 күн бұрын

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.

@singleproppilot

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@The_Love_Doctor_Sean

3 күн бұрын

@@doujinflip not as of now, people can also buy with grants and stop complaining, they are their own problems

Top 3 KZread channels

@HowMoneyWorks

3 күн бұрын

I don't think I am that good just yet, but out of curiosity what would the other 2 be?

@Mahdi0_0Mohammad

3 күн бұрын

​​@@HowMoneyWorks I personally like Hoser, Plainbagel and HMW for my economics news and Task & purpose, Caspian report and Laserpig for my Geopolitical news.

@INDIANATHEIST526

3 күн бұрын

​@@Mahdi0_0MohammadHMW full name?

@fakechannel8213

3 күн бұрын

​@@INDIANATHEIST526How Money Works

@gamerforlife9865

3 күн бұрын

​@@Mahdi0_0Mohammadyo dude, we have the exact same goated youtuber's

Japan hasn't recovered from the house bubble burst... 32 years ago. I'm sure every country on the planet is trying to avoid making the same mistakes.

@Jebact

3 күн бұрын

Houses in Japan are relatively cheap though? And you can get mortgages with under 1% Apr for a 35 year home starter mortgage loan. Sure the house value doesn't go up over time but for most people who just want a place to live that doesn't matter.

@DontUseHack

3 күн бұрын

Oh no, house prices dont go up, how is that a bad thing again? Please do explain how a place I need to live, saying flat in ''value'' is bad.

@Megadebt

3 күн бұрын

@@Jebact That's the problem. Housing values are so undervalued that once a house becomes a certain age the property value is literally zero. Underpopulated municipalities in Japan are literally giving away houses to young people with a clause where they would maintain and live there permanently for a 10 year period. After the bubble burst real estate prices were like 1/10th of the peak.

@Megadebt

3 күн бұрын

@@DontUseHack It completely fucked up the Japanese economy. At one point American companies were panicking about the Japanese overtaking the US economy in the coming years and this happened. It affected every level of the economy and now they have the highest debt to GDP ratio of any country on the planet.

@TacoTuesday4

3 күн бұрын

@@Jebactit’s because their homes are not built to last. When the mortgage is done the house is failing and needs to be torn down and replaced.

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!

Adding taxes will just raise the barrier to entry, landlords will pass the cost to the renters etc,

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.

@sprinkle61

3 күн бұрын

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.

@chiyerano

3 күн бұрын

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.

@revcrussell

3 күн бұрын

Well it needs to be more than 1% because Canada has a 1% tax for foreigners and it did basically nothing.

@yensteel

3 күн бұрын

Vacancy tax is a good idea! How do they enforce it?

@Georgggg

3 күн бұрын

Land value tax is enough to get rid of speculators. They don't speculate with depreciating assets.

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.

@ToPanPawel

3 күн бұрын

But it was a preferred mortgage for certain borrowers. Not a cash incentive no? Or did I miss some news 😅

@djVania08

3 күн бұрын

Do you have somewhere to point me so I can read about it? Polish is fine.

@karolrafalski3419

3 күн бұрын

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...

@iExploder

3 күн бұрын

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.

@xellent

3 күн бұрын

@@iExploderI mean it is super hard to build more housing.

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.

@NaomiVardyy

2 күн бұрын

I know this FA, Abby Joseph Cohen Services but only by her reputation of being a former employee at Goldman Sachs; even though she's now involved in managing portfolios and providing investmnt guidance to clients. I contacted her after I watched her interview on WSJ last month

@aydin6219

2 күн бұрын

How do i reach her, if you don't mind me asking?

@NaomiVardyy

2 күн бұрын

@aydin6219 Well her name is 'ABBY JOSEPH COHEN SERVICES'. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.

@ryancihet555

2 күн бұрын

I’m planning to move to the philipines

@glenn9196

2 күн бұрын

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.

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.

@IronWilliam

3 күн бұрын

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.

@Jake12220

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

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

@Brianna_Hend

2 күн бұрын

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.

@Frederickotto55

2 күн бұрын

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

@Brianna_Hend

2 күн бұрын

You trade also?, I

@Frederickotto55

2 күн бұрын

No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance

@Frederickotto55

2 күн бұрын

From my personal financial advisor ..

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

@SCPMstudios

3 күн бұрын

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.

@Technotranceism

3 күн бұрын

That would probably keep owner's from selling.

@EddieChamo

3 күн бұрын

@@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

@Technotranceism

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@EddieChamo

3 күн бұрын

@@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

Land tax? It already exists. It is called property taxes.

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.

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

3 күн бұрын

Well then it wouldn't be a land tax, it would just be a Properties multiplier with a misleading name

@jeremy.oliver

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@abarbar06

3 күн бұрын

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

Real estate developer and city planning engineer here. It’s quite simple, just build multi family building (with commercial shops in ground floor) as an expansion to current large metro areas, 8 to 12 stories high. With government subsidies in the beginning to kick it off and lower the cost. This will increase supply and there housing prices

@noahd213

3 күн бұрын

Yep, this. We need more higher density mixed use zoning near downtowns. Instead, we have suburban sprawl which is inefficient, expensive, and car dependent. The NIMBYs who own those homes in the sprawl won't let us rezone though.

@xavier3653

3 күн бұрын

The whole point of the video was for people to get into houses. Not apartments

@TacoTuesday4

3 күн бұрын

@@noahd213i personally don’t want to live in high density zones. I don’t care that they are more efficient. Seems I am not alone in that sentiment either.

@steveskigen

3 күн бұрын

​@@TacoTuesday4that's fine but a lot of people do, and those people would no longer be going after the same single-family standalone houses that you prefer.

@stagger9660

3 күн бұрын

Or just limit who and how many houses can be owned.

A land value tax is possibly one of the worst solutions we could think of. It punishes retirees, incentivizes higher rent from landlords, and does absolutely nothing to stop the problem of "buy and hold" envestors. What? You think the 25 year old couple is going to buy that empty plot of land and build a house from scratch? Nope, an envestor will buy it, build some houses on it, and then charge the highest rent they can... just like today. Also, we already have a "land value tax" that is already proven to be horrible for regular people: property tax. The answer is INCREDIBLY simple: ALL houses purchased with cash that won't be the buyer's primary residence has to pay the effective 30-year mortgage price. A $250k would be $250k for first time home buyers (since they will be paying an insane amount of money on interest over 30 years). Buying a $250k house with 100% down as an investment would actually cost $600k (30 years of 7% interest), which is completely fair. In what universe does it make sense that a 25 year old should have to pay 3x more for a house than a 60 year old buying with cash just as an investment? It should be the other way around.

@jason8ification

2 күн бұрын

Yeah, I was surprised when he suggested such a terrible idea.

Governments printed money to get out of the 2009 financial crisis. But nobody can print land. So there is more money chasing the same land. Fix that.

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!

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

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!

@jaad9848

3 күн бұрын

"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?

@RavenMyBoat

2 күн бұрын

@@jaad9848 I'm arguing the same thing. Any exception to the LVT is just an unjust subsidy.

@RavenMyBoat

14 сағат бұрын

@@jaad9848 I'm arguing against the idea of not taxing people's primary residence, for the exact reason you list.

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.

@55hondafit53

3 күн бұрын

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.

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

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

3 күн бұрын

@@Descriptor413 imho the biggest issue with a LVT is how to determine the value. So many opportunities for corruption...

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@Robbedem

2 күн бұрын

@@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.

The debt based economy and its consequences have been disastrous for the human race

One word to y’all, “Georgism” Edit: I made that comment when I was at the beginning of video 😂, didn’t this guy was chill like that 😎

We arnt in a crises. This is a result of deliberate policy. Economic growth, figure the rest out later.

@kyleolson9636

3 күн бұрын

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.

first person to write a full sentence! 😂.

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.

Honestly, there's value in empty land which isn't addressed or acknowledged by economists. I live in a typical suburban neighborhood with an empty lot next door. The owner of the lot admitted, himself, that he's been sitting on it for 20 years, with the plans to put a house on it "someday". Meanwhile, he keeps it mowed (presumably to prevent adverse possession), and it's a large open field where the neighbor kids get to run around and play outside. It's the only area in the neighborhood where kids can actually run full-speed for more than a second before having to slow down and turn to avoid a house, porch, tree, bush, etc. Having seen how much use the kids make of it to just run around and have fun, I've found myself hoping that it never gets developed.

@commentinglife6175

2 күн бұрын

That's the part I find funny about this argument. If "vacant land" is bad, then explain why we need "green spaces" like Central Park in NYC or as mandated in many suburb plans? By this Georgian definition, that land is unusable. (Economists would recognize its non-monetary benefits, but I'm not seeing that possibility in the scheme presented here.)

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

3 күн бұрын

NMBY

@cryptarisprotocol1872

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@FullLengthInterstates

3 күн бұрын

​@@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.

@tealkerberus748

Күн бұрын

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.

@shawnrosspeters

Күн бұрын

@@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.

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.

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

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.

@MichaelChengSanJose

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

@@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!

The problem with LVT is that owning your own home and living in it will *never* be as productive as renting it out. So LVT would pretty much spell the end of personal home ownership.

It seems like the "easy solutions" politicians often propose are short-term and don't get to the root of the problem. Land value taxation sounds like a good strategy, but it also appears to be a hard sell.

@tealkerberus748

Күн бұрын

Land tax of any sort is an effective way of forcing low income households out of high value neighbourhoods. Taxes should be based on what the individual taxpayer is able to pay, as evidenced by their income or their expenditure.

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?

@SeanTalkoff

Күн бұрын

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

@SteveDutton-v

Күн бұрын

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.

@DavidCovington-st2id

Күн бұрын

this sounds considerable! think you know any advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation

@SteveDutton-v

Күн бұрын

Vivian Carol Gioia 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.

@DavidCovington-st2id

Күн бұрын

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.

*Amazing video, you work for 4Oyrs to have $1M in your retirement, meanwhile some people are putting just $10K into trading from just few months ago and now they are multimillionaires*

@tommydaplvgvevo8700

3 күн бұрын

Waking up every 14th of each month to $210,000 it's a blessing to I and my family... Big gratitude to Michael Wayne

@tommydaplvgvevo8700

3 күн бұрын

Hello, I am very interested. As you know, there are tons of investments out there and without solid knowledge, I can't decide what is best. Can you explain further how you invest and earn?

@daisyshiloah5681

3 күн бұрын

Same, I operate a wide- range of Investments with help from My Financial Adviser. My advice is to get a professional who will help you, plan and enhance your management skills. For the record, working with Michael Wayne, has been an amazing experience.

@moussimousse5420

3 күн бұрын

Hello how do you make such monthly?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down🤦🏽of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God

@shriekitsallie

3 күн бұрын

I'm favoured, $90K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America,, all thanks to Mr Michael Wayne

If the market can’t support affordable housing, I don’t support the market. Fuck em all.

The problem (one of them) causing prices to rise and not fall is that people see it as an asset so they do things to try to boost all house prices so that their house price goes up too. AKA: Its the want of others to gain money that makes us not have enough money

No you can't. Those who were idiots enough and greedy enough to try and gain wealth by pricing housing this high, need to learn a lesson about bubbles. Infinite growth on finite planet is not possible and people need three basic things to survive: Place to live, food and water, access to healthcare. And NONE of these should EVER be a chess piece on a board of infinite wealth accumulation. People need their lesson, and if the bubble bursts, then all the better. It's a correction move and things get back into balance where they SHOULD be.

@oriontigley5089

3 күн бұрын

Except people don't learn. Remember 2008? The rich people who should've learned just went right back to the same game while getting wealthier.

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.

@Demopans5990

3 күн бұрын

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

@newscoulomb3705

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@commentinglife6175

2 күн бұрын

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?

If federal government adds another land tax, it needs to ban states from charging property tax. Otherwise it will be a double whammy

8:15 that has to have honest land values though, 50 acres of wilderness is one thing compared to a few abandoned buildings in a city center kept purely for speculation

Housing should never be seen as an investable asset in the first place, thats the real issue here. Put laws in place that stop people owning multiple homes.

@Mi_Mono

3 күн бұрын

Maybe not individual people owning multiple homes... but instead keep corporations and institutions from owning them and also have a tax that effects individuals when they do end up owning multiple houses. The more you own, the more it costs.

@donaldbiden9492

3 күн бұрын

The channel creator probably doesn't like that idea because he probably has a few himself. That's the same reason that type of legislation would never get through congress. Our politicians own many homes.

@stagger9660

3 күн бұрын

​@@Mi_Monowe would have to keep individuals from owning multiple homes for that to work. Or else the companies that are told they can't buy houses will just have their ceos doing it as a side hustle per se

@DeadAir21

3 күн бұрын

@@donaldbiden9492limiting how may homes you can buy doesn’t solve the issue. We need more supply and more variety of supply. The problem is getting the supply built where people want to live is the problem because no one wants to live near medium or high density housing. I don’t think you should limit how many properties someone can own because people will just find a way around it.

@san3711

3 күн бұрын

@@DeadAir21 That does pose an interesting question. Wouldn't limiting the number of homes increase the supply of available homes? Also, if there is no limitation on the number of homes you can acquire, what would stop wealthier folks from buying up this new supply? They would be advantaged compared to new home buyers. I think there should be some sort of limit, like 2-5 homes, at the very least. I'm a fan of 2 (primary + secondary), and anything more than 2 must be rent to own.

Hell yeah, Georgism!

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

MAGA = Make America Georgist Already

I already pay property taxes. I will vote against any attempt at a land owners tax unless it will replace the property tax

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.

Houses cost 100k. The beurocracy is what makes them 500k as well as housing investing that makes banks rich that are enabled by corrupt politicians

@kylejohnson6775

3 күн бұрын

Repealing zoning laws will help the housing crisis quite a lot

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

@harveypolanski755

3 күн бұрын

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.

@coprographia

3 күн бұрын

Look into how they handle it in Vienna, Austria. Their public housing is astounding.

@doujinflip

3 күн бұрын

Singapore too. Something like 3/4ths of people there opt to live in government-built housing.

@Anton43218

3 күн бұрын

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.

@MasterChief0x72

3 күн бұрын

@@doujinflip Singapore has close to 89% home ownership rate. Much more than the 3/4ths you mentioned.

A problem that I see with Georgism that doesn't seem to be discussed is a tax on the undeveloped value of land would incentivise the development of undeveloped land. In cities this can make alot of sense but in large swaths of rural America, those incentives could cause major problems.

@FullLengthInterstates

3 күн бұрын

rural land is effectively worthless and would fall beneath the lvt tax threshold. you can go in zillow right now and buy entire acres for less than $10k. no value, no tax.

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

The incentive is only in place if that land is valuable. Most of it isn't, which is part of why it's still used for farming. And if it is valuable, there's a strong case that maybe it really should be developed. The difference here is that LVT does a lot more to encourage development of valuable land in cities(since you're getting taxed more for it), which means better use of land in cities, which reduces the need for sprawl. There will still be some, but it won't be as pressing of a need.

@Jooshyb

3 күн бұрын

@Descriptor413 it also encourages the development of less valuable land too just to a lesser extent. It's a potential side effect that should be considered. Development in rural areas doesn't mean more effective land use like in cities. It often translates more into the exploitation of natural resources.

@Descriptor413

3 күн бұрын

@@Jooshyb Again, I'm just not sure I agree. A big part of rural developments is the "drive 'till you can qualify" commute mentality. More effective land use in cities would reduce the need for that, since there would be more housing nearer in to where the jobs are. To be certain, there will always be development in rural areas. For some, it's a desirable lifestyle on its own. But I would still argue it would be less than it is now. Rural building is already attractive just because the land value is already low, after all.

Why not stop the house price from increasing and allow wages to catch up. Takes a bit of time, but that makes everyone happy. Houses don't lose value and sooner or later become more affordable in correlation with wages. CORRUPTION IS WILD

@TVluver2

3 күн бұрын

How do you stop house prices from increasing? Where I live there are usually multiple offers which causes a bidding war and, as a result, homes often sell for more than asking price. This, of course, makes home prices go up overall. How do you stop that? Tell sellers they have to accept the first reasonable offer than comes in? That wouldn't be fair and probably wouldn't pass a court challenge.

What about giving incentives to people to move to rural areas, and to businesses to establish there?

@thegoodsmaster

3 күн бұрын

Logistics. Needs permanent signs of residents moving to a location. Then you need infrastructure to move goods quickly out the area

One issue is the buy2let schemes. So many landlords think they "provide" home for people by hoarding up new built houses and remortgaging their portfolio to flip their assets to buy even more. There is a thing called REITS. If someone wants to play landlord, they could do it within that system while councils could and should have a building code for REITs. The other benefit with this, that anyone can buy reits these days, since they are purchasable like stocks and pay regular dividends.

@SCPMstudios

3 күн бұрын

REITs are typically scams, most of the profits are taken by whomever runs the fund. Nobody is gonna go for your stupid idea.

"Can we make housing affordable, without destroying the economy?" Short answer: Yes. Long Answer: Easily.

Affordable, based on what the average individual earns in the UK, would be an average new 3bed semi, for around 250,000 and a nice one that's over 80m2 with a big garden for 300,000. A two bed terrace without a garden, for 160,000-180,000. A commonhold 2 bed appartment, of at least 50m2 for 125,000-150,000. And a one bed studio commonhold appartment, of at least 35m2 for 80,000-120,000. In the south east of england. Less for anywhere north of milton keynes, as the average wage is lower up there.

Everyone wants housing to not be an investment yet the reason they want to buy a house is to store wealth.

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.

@hanselito2416

3 күн бұрын

It's going to come to a point where the investment class lobbys companies to provide housing for their employees like slaves

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

🤦🤦🤦 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.

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

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.

@nbonasoro

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

@WanderingExistence

3 күн бұрын

@@nbonasoro Free or with loans?

While housing as an investment is a major problem, just fixing that isn't enough. Mortgages should be capped at the construction value of the house (at the time of construction) and have the land valued at $0. Buying houses with loans should only be legal for primary residences. Rentals should only be legal in designated zoning - no buying up single family homes or condos and then renting them out. But even if we do all of these sorts of things, we still have a demand problem with two causes. One, too much immigration, whether you want to call it legal or illegal. Two, employers consolidating all of the high paying jobs in a very small number of geographic areas. Keeping housing prices from spiraling out of control in a place like San Jose, CA is a big challenge. It's hard for workers to only stay 2-3 years at a company if there's no other employers around and each new job means relocating to another state. So how do we want to force employers to provide real, stable 40 year careers without jumping all over the place? Even if you make it hard to fire people, most people can't afford to stay at the same pay forever. And you can always just make somebody's life hell to try to get them to quit. Employers have way too much power over employees and unless we reign it in we will be stuck with whatever dystopia will make line go up the most.

@RextheRebel

3 күн бұрын

You sure we're not the same person? Because I could have sworn I was reading my own comment. Happy to see I'm not completely alone in acknowledging the reality of the situation.

The two largest factors to housing prices are private investment and building/zoning regulations. Both of these things can be relatively easily solved. If you eliminate all tax advantages from low density housing to any owner who is not a resident and remove zoning regulations you'd get more than half way there with just those two changes.

Bologna! Another type of tax isn't going to reduce home prices. We need big investors like Blackrock to stop buying up entire neighborhoods.

@Wearepricester

3 күн бұрын

Actually, as a builder, these large companies keep costs down. Their buying power allows them to negotiate pricing well below the market rate. When I receive a large home order I am able to use that buying power to negotiate material and labor pricing more effectively with my subcontractors which then lowers my retail home costs for the outside buyer. Most of the increase has been in land acquisition and development costs. I used to be able to buy lots for 20k. Now it's 100k.

@wannabe5497

3 күн бұрын

@@Wearepricester That savings doesn't get passed along to the homebuyer. They buy out whole communities and then rent them. They don't sell them. Individuals cannot compete against investment companies. Individuals lose.

@FullLengthInterstates

3 күн бұрын

​@@Wearepricesteralmost like scale is good or something

There is no 'fixing' a fundamentally fucking stupid idea. Houses are for living in, soon as they start being built, bought and sold as investments it is entirely too late. We need to build houses, cheap ones, ones people can actually afford. We need to tell the developers 'I don't care if you could make 2x as much by building a big fancy house worth five times as much, only investors can afford those, we need single family starter homes and apartments' and then NOT fold when they whine about it. We need the GOVERNMENT to GOVERN rather than washing it's hands of shit and expecting the fictional free market to fix shit.

@Technotranceism

3 күн бұрын

Pretty much most homes are affordable, to at least someone willing to pay for it. The problem is that so many people have been buying them, that the market has been overinflated for years. It's again at the point of another burst. There's cheaper housing options, it's just whether municipalities will allow you to implement them. Manufactured homes, and tiny houses are affordable, but municipalities put restrictions in place, and land is also still inflated as well. Housing isn't treated so much like the automotive market, where automobiles depreciate quickly, and eventually balance out, until they to become inflated. If housing and land suffered similar depreciation like automobiles, they would possibly be more affordable to some extent, until people pay to inflate the cost of them inevitably. The value of something is only what someone asks for it, and what people are willing to pay for it. The whole concept of the market system, is a blessing, and a bane to us all. If I buy a $35k car, and never do any maintenance for the 10 years that I owned it, and someone is willing to pay $25k or more for it, than I got a good deal on my investment. The same can apply to a house. If I buy a $200k house, and never put a dime into it, and someone is willing to pay $250k or more 10 years down the road, than I made a good investment. Sounds dumb, but it's what happens all the time.

I read on another video that apparently houses are depreciating assets in japan, due to the age of the country and older buildings being harder to maintain / keep with compliance as engineering gets better. If houses weren't an asset by default, it'd solve a good chunk of the issue

Taxation won't ever solve any problem. People should follow economic incentives instead of putting all their productive energy in minimizing taxes through finding loop holes or just vote for lower taxes in their own favor