patrick.net

I'm all for taxing foreigners buying real estate here.

Taxing out foreigners could mean lower home prices and more money in Americans' pockets to stimulate spending on consumables. Only banks and realtors could be against this because it would stimulate everyone else as they stand by and watch. Although, more mortgage originations and home sales (at lower prices) might actually help banks/NAR

Can we toss in the flippers?

London thrives because it welcomes foreigners. Populist protectionism goes nowhere.

Peter P says

London thrives because it welcomes foreigners. Populist protectionism goes nowhere.

Yes, where the median home is worth over $1M USD. Thriving for some...

I'm for taxing non residential Real Estate definitely.

Especially when the economy improves and those inventories start impacting communities health should other wise be thriving.

Peter P says

London thrives because it welcomes foreigners. Populist protectionism goes nowhere.

It hurts a lot of Americans out here. These people come from overseas price everything up, and it is Americans who are footing the bill for all this. This isn't right, we are selling America to foreigners. And that is not good.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm for taxing non residential Real Estate definitely.

You know, what you are suggesting is a form of socialism.

Russian oligarchs in miami and chinese oligarchs in SFBA are the only reason why we still have jobs. If deflation were to have occured we would all be starving in the streets because the job creators would punish the rest of us out of spite.

The best way to tackle home affordability issues is to reign in the NIMBYs and increase supply.

Peter P says

The best way to tackle home affordability issues is to reign in the NIMBYs and increase supply.

You are getting dangerously close to discovering the "death panels" plot...

Peter P says

London thrives because it welcomes foreigners. Populist protectionism goes nowhere.

Inequality is thriving there more than anywhere, it appears.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/londons-housing-boom.html
Asking the working and middle class to pay 3/5ths of their income to rent is not long-term sustainable. "Thriving" is not the word. It's like a garden with a run wild exotic kuzdzoo that's choking off all the home-grown diverse native flowers. In the end, all you have is kudzoo.

High real estate prices benefit native existing owners at the expense of new comers.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm for taxing non residential Real Estate definitely.

The people you're taxing are manufacturers and businessmen. They will just pass the cost onto the consumer, and you'll pay it.

FortWayne says

It hurts a lot of Americans out here. These people come from overseas price everything up, and it is Americans who are footing the bill for all this. This isn't right, we are selling America to foreigners. And that is not good.

Sound familiar. Where have I heard them?

Well you can always move to the Midwest. no rich buyer wants to move here-so you can stll get it cheap.

Or you can trade your iphone 6 for a house in Detroit.
http://bgr.com/2014/10/08/detroit-man-trades-house-for-iphone/

HydroCaBRon says

CaptainShuddup says

I'm for taxing non residential Real Estate definitely.

The people you're taxing are manufacturers and businessmen. They will just pass the cost onto the consumer, and you'll pay it.

This bullshit line, repeated ad nauseum over the past 30 years, has helped create the greatest wealth disparity in nearly 100 years.

Peter P says

You know, what you are suggesting is a form of socialism.

No socialism is a failed model that only ensures that the elite are well taken care of while everyone else can pound sand. Just like untethered capitalism.

There's a balance between the two that people far greater than the fucksticks out there today (on both sides of our political spectrum are cramming down our throats today. ) realized a long time ago what works and what doesn't when you have a government who's allegiance was to "the People". Back when it was their job to build a strong Middle class and not a stronger Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates.

When you have a government who acts in the best interest of a healthy Middleclass, then you don't really have poor people. But instead you have some people who are just lazy sorry asses, and don't want to work.

The 70's, 80's and much of the 90's if you were poor, then you didn't want to work, or you just depended on the welfare system and didn't want nothing else.

Back then the rich only got that way because were workaholics and not because they shook the right hand at a political fund raiser.

CaptainShuddup says

Back then the rich only got that way because were workaholics and not because they shook the right hand at a political fund raiser.

Passe. The new approach to wealth is to sell your privacy to advertisers. Many multi-millionaires and billionaires are minted in SV selling YOU. Just check out the business model of Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn...

Peter P says

CaptainShuddup says

I'm for taxing non residential Real Estate definitely.

You know, what you are suggesting is a form of socialism.

No, it's protectionism and conservatively speaking it is fine. Because you are supposed to protect your own nation and your own.

Fortwayne really hits the nail on the head.

Doing the right thing can be framed how ever those selling us our leaders wants it to sound.

One day doing the right thing is called "Protectionism" and "Isolationism" the next it's called "Socialism".

Until Stalin comes around putting bullets in people's heads because he didn't get his way, then nothing in our system is Socialism.

Socialism comes standard equipped with Mass-graves in Limestone pits.

CaptainShuddup says

Fortwayne really hits the nail on the head.

Common ground across the aisle! Why can you guys manage this on an internet thread and the fools in Washington cannot? Maybe they should start a forum for legislation rather than a fancy rotunda. They only work, what 20 weeks of the year in Washington as it is?

FortWayne says

No, it's protectionism and conservatively speaking it is fine.

The problem here is that modern conservatism sets itself up as the sole heir of classical economics (Smith, Ricardo) or the only intimate cousin of the Austrian school.

These economic philosophies (particularly the classical one) are staunchly opposed to protectionism.

Since conservatives tut-tut, lecture, and finger-wag at non-conservative policies on the grounds that any violation of the principles of Smith and Ricardo will lead to ruin for all, I don't see how you can advocate for protectionism without being laughed at.

Essentially you're abandoning the principles you lecture everyone else on because brown/yellow people.

Go visit the site of the idiot Von Mises and soak in his lectures on how protectionism hurts everyone.

An interesting thought. Foreign buyers purchasing real estate from residents (with loans) reduces the liability on the Fed's balance sheet (MBS gets paid back). This allows the game to continue through additional schemes to prop up the economy, through housing, until the economy can stand on its own (i.e. take weight off one end and add it onto the other end all the while keeping the total weight the same).