« First « Previous Comments 10 - 31 of 31 Search these comments
b) collectively, people buying up real estate as "income properties" reduce the supply on the market and make buying more expensive for people.
would increase the supply of rentals making it cheaper to rent
the supply of housing isn't increasing and that's the core problem.
Strategist sayswould increase the supply of rentals making it cheaper to rent
the supply of housing isn't increasing and that's the core problem. Even Pure Land Georgism isnt' going to lower housing cost without more supply than demand.
back to your point, as long as vacancy is low all LLs are price takers, free to evict tenants for the next who can and will pay more for the leasehold tenancy on offer.
so why blame the landlords when they have nothing to do with increasing the supply of new constructio
Where would you have lived until you could have afforded to buy if someone hadn't bought a condo and rented it to you?
Would you sit in an investment property renting it out to family, pocketing the 11+% net in good conscience? Or would you arrange some sort of financing to give them ownership?
bob2356 saysWhere would you have lived until you could have afforded to buy if someone hadn't bought a condo and rented it to you?
That's just it, I want to change the broken system we have.
Actually I don't really give a shit any more, I just want to educate other people to pick up the fight for economic justice, if they want.
My position is that it should be possible for people to live on this planet without having to pay the toll-takers who have bought up so much of the real estate stock.
How we get there is open to debate. That we should get there shouldn't be, as it's plainly obvious rent-seeking in RE is indeed a main cause of poverty amid progress, that Georgist claptrap that rubs you the wrong way for some reason.
Change the system to what? Where are all the examples of your ideal system in the real world? Crickets chirping.
You dodged the question again. Where would you live if someone didn't buy a condo and rent it out to you? Crickets chirping.
Why don't you move to somewhere that has economic justice that you approve of. Let us know where that is.
Outside of the coastal areas and some major metropolis, land is plentiful, rents ae cheap and house prices are moderate.
The main cause of poverty? Bullshit. My very blue collar tenants all have no problem affording cigarettes, beer, and lottery. They all have expensive cable, current model smart phones, and late model cars. They are never going to be home owners. I don't smoke, drink, or play the lottery. I don't have cable and use a $5.00 tracphone. My ride is a 96 suburban with 320k. I own the houses mortgage free after a hell of a lot of work, blood, and sweat for a lot of years. Damn right I would take a profit on it.
So instead of stepping up to the plate, making the sacrifices, and doing the work you whine we need to change the system. Boo Hoo cry me a river of tears. Instead you invest in the stock market to fund the corporations buying up houses and renting them out. Perfect. Move your IRA to self directed and buy some houses yourself. Then you can fix them up and arrange financing to give people home ownership. What's stopping you? Make it happen instead of whining. Ante up your money.
Unfortunately, good paying jobs and good schools are scarce in those areas
b) collectively, people buying up real estate as "income properties" reduce the supply on the market and make buying more expensive for people.
You dodged the question again. Where would you live if someone didn't buy a condo and rent it out to you? Crickets chirping.
I think the current present is sub-optimal. I see how rich people picked up a lot of real estate in the last crash and are now renting it out at very nice profit, and I know these profits will continue to rise especially in CA and other states with nifty Prop 13 tax protections on LLs.
It's not just LLs, it's of course NIMBYism limiting housing. But private LLs are not necessary for the provision of sufficient housing for everyone. Singapore, Germany, and Japan showed that it's possible for government to throw over the Monopoly board and move who holds the whip in the tenancy relationship from leasor to lessee.
The sticks and bricks aren't what makes housing so expensive, MOSTLY what we pay for housing is simply what value we give to access to everything outside the lot lines; the LL is getting paid for providing things he is not actually producing.
He's actually really getting something for nothing.
So you are a commie. All you had to do was tell us that, and we would understand.
It's not just LLs, it's of course NIMBYism limiting housing. But private LLs are not necessary for the provision of sufficient housing for everyone. Singapore, Germany, and Japan showed that it's possible for government to throw over the Monopoly board and move who holds the whip in the tenancy relationship from leasor to lessee.
What capitalism isn't, actually, is profiting from getting something for nothing, taking money from people without providing any new goods or services in return for that consideration.
Sounds more like robbery to me.
Moved this month's IRA contribution into BAC-L when it was touching $1300
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BAC-PL/
(it's a 7.25% yield preferred at $1000 issue price)
Converts into 20 shares of common if/when BAC goes over $65, hence the $1300 tether.
Seems like a no-brainer win/win here for me.
Case 1: BAC trades where it is, under $65: I get my $18 dividend per share every quarter, go me
Case 2: BAC goes over $65: I sell the position and look for something else
Case 3: BAC tanks like 2007-2008: All right, houses are cheap again!
#investing