patrick.net

That Real Estate appreciates at all is amazing. Over time, houses decay away like any consumable item.

The math is fucky somewhere in your calculations.

Stocks can appreciate forever, and pay (ever increasing) dividends.

Houses always eventually decay to the point that they must be demolished, and then all that is left is the land. So what is actually appreciating, and by how much? (Obviously land value appreciation negates house degradation over time. So much so that there is net appreciation) that's crazy!

errc says

Houses always eventually decay to the point that they must be demolished, and then all that is left is the land. So what is actually appreciating, and by how much? (Obviously land value appreciation negates house degradation over time. So much so that there is net appreciation) that's crazy!

Per Shiller, over long term agricultural land appreciates faster than houses: 1.1% per year vs 0.6%. So his model seems accounts for the house decay.

Not sure why we're arguing in the abstract.

Vancouver
Toronto

Nuff said.

Strategist says

It is fair and it is well deserved.
The first house I purchased (and still own) 31 years ago had very high taxes compared to the homeowners who purchased well before me. I paid my dues at the time, and now I benefit. The new generation will go through the same pain, and benefit later on in life.
I see nothing wrong.

FortWayne says

Isn't that how investment supposed to work?

BS a house is not an investment like a company. Nothing is produced. No risk is taken. The only return a house should have is not to pay the rent.
The price inflation is only due to not building enough, and therefore making housing a luxury afforded only by rich people.
New generations will never do the same because there just isn't houses for them to do it. They live in trailers.
That's why there is a crisis. That's why there are articles in the nyt talking about this. Helloooo....

....and then these privileged people who were allowed to profit indecently, think they deserved it (because it's them, you know) and in addition think it's fair to not pay their share of taxes.
You guys are just welfare queens, that's what you are.

Strategist says

The home is an investment just like stocks.

The home you live in is not an asset. It's a liability.
Investment property is an asset.

junkmail says

Not sure why we're arguing in the abstract.

Vancouver

Toronto

Nuff said.

NFLX kicks Vanronto's ass with both ihands tied behind the back.

junkmail says

Strategist says

The home is an investment just like stocks.

The home you live in is not an asset. It's a liability.

Investment property is an asset.

Which is why among other things, landlords ought not be able to deduct market value of vacancies on their federal tax returns.

What's right is right, right!

Fucking White Male says

Which is why among other things, landlords ought not be able to deduct market value of vacancies on their federal tax returns.

You're kidding me. We can deduct that? I'll have to check that.