patrick.net

If we have AUSTERITY MEASURES here housing will get crushed!

Where do you get the 85% number ? Also not ALL employees get 85% or even the 68% mentioned in the article. The statement "he would get up to 68 percent of the pay of a captain in 2011- holiday pay and shift differentials included" the key part of that is "up to 68%" - you have to work in the system for 30 years to get that. However it is insane that it is based on the CURRENT salaries of employees going into the future. I never heard of that before. Heck with a plan like that, who needs fixed income.

imagine what it would be like to retire in 1976, when houses cost maybe 50,000 and yours was long ago paid off, and now your sitting in a prop 13 protected house worth 500k (with tax free cap gains when you sell) with a few hundred dollars of annual property tax and your raking in 100k / year because you get 85% of current state employee wages. They must be swimming in money. On the plus side, at least they'll die soon. Their one last useful contribution to their society.

In middle east the people protest against the government employees.

In USSA the government employees protest against the people!

The Koch brothers called. They want you back bert.

HousingWatcher says

The Koch brothers called. They want you back bert.

Oh, so like i'm the only one who thinks this is wrong?

bert says

HousingWatcher says

The Koch brothers called. They want you back bert.

Oh, so like i’m the only one who thinks this is wrong?

The problem with public benefits is that we don't all get them.

"Investors scooping up SFHs is a separate problem that can and should be dealt with."

EXCUSE ME? Since when is buying a house a problem. If someone wants to buy 1 or 100 houses, that is ther right and none of anybody's business.

bert says

Their one and only useful contribution to their society.

FYP.

HousingWatcher says

If someone wants to buy 1 or 100 houses, that is ther right and none of anybody’s business.

Investors in SFHs serve a similar economic function as the professionals who buy up event tickets to resell.

They are pure parasites. If their business model was taxed to break them their economic contribution would not be missed, not in the slightest.

Land is a special form of capital. Those who monopolize it are in fact one of the problems in our current system.

And this has been going on for centuries.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/chrchl.htm

Do you own any stocks or muni bonds? Because if you do, your one of those same parasites.

bert says

bert says
The problem with public benefits is that we don’t all get them.

This sounds like a good legal case. It seems to me that the state should be offering the exact same benefits that it gives its employees to everyone else. If a tax payer funded entity can not discriminate in its hiring, then why is it that the state can discriminate in handing out benefits.

HousingWatcher says

Because if you do, your one of those same parasites.

well, I didn't see the difference between land ownership and other forms of enterprise until relatively late in life.

100 years ago Georgists called being able to see how land ownership was a form of unjust privilege "seeing the cat".

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/The_Cat.html

Here's a book from 1890 covering this philosophical issue in very great detail.

The bottom line is that nobody labored to create the land so nobody should profit from its ownership.

This is not a controversial position to hold in economics, actually.

Many well-known economists made this argument in a 1990 open letter to Gorbachev urging him to not privatize Russia's vast holdings of natural wealth.

"Social collection of the rent of land and natural resources serves three purposes. First, it guarantees that no one dispossesses fellow citizens by obtaining a disproportionate share of what nature provides for humanity. Second, it provides revenue with which governments can pay for socially valuable activities without discouraging capital formation or work effort, or interfering in other ways with the efficient allocation of resources. Third, the resulting revenue permits utility and other services that have marked economies of scale or density to be priced at levels conducive to their efficient use."

Alas, it was not to be.

Troy says

HousingWatcher says

If someone wants to buy 1 or 100 houses, that is ther right and none of anybody’s business.

Investors in SFHs serve a similar economic function as the professionals who buy up event tickets to resell.
They are pure parasites. If their business model was taxed to break them their economic contribution would not be missed, not in the slightest.
Land is a special form of capital. Those who monopolize it are in fact one of the problems in our current system.
And this has been going on for centuries.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/chrchl.htm

Troy is on the money there. These people get all the worlds taxpayer subsidized business and only serve function of parasites. There is no symbiosis.

HousingWatcher says

“Investors scooping up SFHs is a separate problem that can and should be dealt with.”
EXCUSE ME? Since when is buying a house a problem. If someone wants to buy 1 or 100 houses, that is ther right and none of anybody’s business.

depends, ever hear of Anti-Trust?

Anyone has the right to buy as much land as they want. What do you want? Government owned housing? NEWSFLASH: The #1 land owner in the U.S. is the federal government. 60% of Utah is owned by the feds.

HousingWatcher says

Anyone has the right to buy as much land as they want.

I agree with that. The issue is what compensation is owed for making everyone else poorer with the land buyer's holding of title to the commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

The #1 land owner in the U.S. is the federal government.

Thanks to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act, the good land was mostly platted out 100+ years ago.

What's left is largely economically marginal (ie worthless), plus some forest and park reserves held in trust for future generations.

HousingWatcher says

What do you want? Government owned housing?

No, I want scumfuck leech landlords out of the single-family housing market. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

Not to side with Ayn Rand here, but it's your problem if you don't own land and somebody else does. An investor is not a parasite inasmuch as you can be a "parasite," too, or even out-parasite the investors if you put your mind to it.

It is the worst excess of our Puritan heritage to moralize the ownership of private property. The only thing worse than a rabblement of wealthy elites owning all the land is the government owning all the land. Governments betray their people eventually: the faster when they control the means and the wherewithal.

The Puritans liked to work hard and not smart. Not everybody has a mind, and that is why the ultimate result of capitalism is *inequality* and *servitude*.

Philistine says

It is the worst excess of our Puritan heritage to moralize the ownership of private property

and I say it's a great and ongoing injustice to have privatized the commons and continue to conflate the ownership of land and natural opportunity with actual productive capitalism.

And I've got plenty of conservatives on my side. Eg:

"Anyway I've run into tons of situations where I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock's book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax."

http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Buckley_HG.html

Philistine says

An investor is not a parasite inasmuch as you can be a “parasite,” too, or even out-parasite the investors if you put your mind to it.

all this "investment" in land valuation has broken many, many economies.

Look around you, you're soaking in a prime example now. This nation borrowed SIX TRILLION dollars last decade to join this parasite game.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

We're completely and totally screwed by this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

I'm not on the side of so-called (SoCal-ed?) "investment", either. We are suffering from the tyranny of the stupid and the tasteless and the heartless. It is sad--and beyond the scope of a real estate blog to surmount.

The parasites win. What they win is rather questionable. But what we lose is immeasurable.

1,125 from before 1976. That’s a lot of spending money floating around Oakland for buying investment properties. At the same time, it will take 10% of Oakland’s general fund to pay just for those pre-1976 retirees - money out of the economy that can’t be used by others to buy houses. I don’t see house prices going down anymore because investors are scoping up SFRs with all that cash floating around.

LOL. You really think 1125 people in Oakland, a city of half a million people, that are getting a pension that amounts to a middle class salary are going to scoop up all the property in Oakland as an investment?

MarkInSF says

1,125 from before 1976. That’s a lot of spending money floating around Oakland for buying investment properties. At the same time, it will take 10% of Oakland’s general fund to pay just for those pre-1976 retirees - money out of the economy that can’t be used by others to buy houses. I don’t see house prices going down anymore because investors are scoping up SFRs with all that cash floating around.

LOL. You really think 1125 people in Oakland, a city of half a million people, that are getting a pension that amounts to a middle class salary are going to scoop up all the property in Oakland as an investment?

No, but have you noticed that prices for good houses have not dropped precipitously? There's money out there, and a lot of it you are paying for. Are there any stats on how many mid-priced SFRs are being bought by owner occupiers? I'm guessing that prices won't drop anymore because ROI numbers are good enough. If you're waiting to buy because you think prices for SFRs will be going lower because the numbers don't work yet for "normal" people you could be disappointed because most SFRs are no longer being bought by normal people.

@Troy

http://www.wealthandwant.com/

This site you revealed has got my attention.

bert says

MarkInSF says

1,125 from before 1976. That’s a lot of spending money floating around Oakland for buying investment properties. At the same time, it will take 10% of Oakland’s general fund to pay just for those pre-1976 retirees - money out of the economy that can’t be used by others to buy houses. I don’t see house prices going down anymore because investors are scoping up SFRs with all that cash floating around.

LOL. You really think 1125 people in Oakland, a city of half a million people, that are getting a pension that amounts to a middle class salary are going to scoop up all the property in Oakland as an investment?

No, but have you noticed that prices for good houses have not dropped precipitously? There’s money out there, and a lot of it you are paying for. Are there any stats on how many mid-priced SFRs are being bought by owner occupiers? I’m guessing that prices won’t drop anymore because ROI numbers are good enough. If you’re waiting to buy because you think prices for SFRs will be going lower because the numbers don’t work yet for “normal” people you could be disappointed because most SFRs are no longer being bought by normal people.

You and lots of other people on this blog don't seem to realize that investors/speculators don't control the market. In order for prices to go up sustainably, you need organic buyers, which are currently on strike, and will remain on strike until prices drop, significantly. The speculators will buy, prices will go up a little, then there will be a slew of "pent-up supply" crowd unloading their inventory, and prices will come down again, lower than the previous trough. This will continue for another 5-10 years.

If the city files for bankruptcy then can they avoid paying those pensions?

HousingWatcher says

“Investors scooping up SFHs is a separate problem that can and should be dealt with.”
EXCUSE ME? Since when is buying a house a problem. If someone wants to buy 1 or 100 houses, that is ther right and none of anybody’s business.

When you have banks accepting lower offers from all-cash buyers who then dump the properties right back on the market to profit, it propagates the cycle: regular/leveraged buyers pay a premium, cash buyers build more capital. Essentially you have one side that profits from nothing.

I understand why the banks would prefer non-mortgaged buyers, but their is an economic parasite, an inefficiency in the system. I don't know if anything can (or should) be done about it, but it has a net negative impact on the economy and wealth disparity (and I'm in no way a proponent of "spreading the wealth" BTW).

Troy says

HousingWatcher says

What do you want? Government owned housing?

No, I want scumfuck leech landlords out of the single-family housing market. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

I'm in the process of building a portfolio of SFH's. The renters who live in my properties I presume did not have the down payments and favorable credit rating to purchase these houses. Or they have chose not to. With my credit scores and diligent savings, I did. So my purchasing these SFH's allowed these renters to live in relatively new homes they could otherwise not afford and they also have the flexibility to move year after year. In turn, I over 30 years will be rewarded ownership of these properties. How does this make me a scumfuck leech?

The renters who live in my properties I presume did not have the down payments and favorable credit rating to purchase these houses.

No, you outbid them for the properties. Without the investor presence in the SFH market, prices would fall to that which is affordable.

This is just common sense.

How does this make me a scumfuck leech?

You are providing nothing of value that didn't already exist on the market. You are like the ticket brokers who buy up blocks of tickets to resell. You are rent-seeking scum getting something for nothing.

Troy says

Philistine says

An investor is not a parasite inasmuch as you can be a “parasite,” too, or even out-parasite the investors if you put your mind to it.

all this “investment” in land valuation has broken many, many economies.
Look around you, you’re soaking in a prime example now. This nation borrowed SIX TRILLION dollars last decade to join this parasite game.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS
We’re completely and totally screwed by this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

I like the progress and poverty link and the excerpt. However, doesn't the landowner pay property taxes which helps pay for the good of the community? Or are you proposing that landowners individually better the land to create firemen, police, teachers, etc...?

Troy says

The renters who live in my properties I presume did not have the down payments and favorable credit rating to purchase these houses.
No, you outbid them for the properties. Without the investor presence in the SFH market, prices would fall to that which is affordable.
This is just common sense.
How does this make me a scumfuck leech?
You are providing nothing of value that didn’t already exist on the market. You are like the ticket brokers who buy up blocks of tickets to resell. You are rent-seeking scum getting something for nothing.

I didn't outbid them. I bid lower than asking prices of these bank owned properties. I invest by a giant military base. Are you proposing that military personel all have to commit to a 30 year purchase of a house to take up residence? Considering that they move frequently, that'd be a uncertain financial burden that you're asking our troops to take up. Should they not have the option to rent? Or are you proposing that only those who have the right to rent out are carpenters and electricians who each individually build residences and then rent them out themselves?

burritos says

Are you proposing that military personel all have to commit to a 30 year purchase of a house to take up residence?

No, I'm proposing your business model is taxed higher than it is, since taxing rents is superior to taxing wages or actual capital investment, and there are a trillion dollars or more of rents going undertaxed in our current system.

By taxing rent-seekers much higher, actual productive people and bona fide capital investment returns could be taxed less.

Win-win for everyone.

Ideally the military would have its act together and not allow rent-seeking slime like you chiseling our servicemen over finding SFHs to live convenient to the base.

However, doesn’t the landowner pay property taxes which helps pay for the good of the community?

Indirectly, yes, but with SFHs too much of the ground rent is being captured by the LL. LL's didn't create this value, but they are pocketing it. This is an economic fault in the system, a wealth drain from the working class to the wealthy via rents.

It is a large part why our current economic system is falling apart. Too much wealth collecting at the top, too much debt at the bottom.

This is all going to come crashing down eventually.

Troy says

burritos says

Are you proposing that military personel all have to commit to a 30 year purchase of a house to take up residence?

No, I’m proposing your business model is taxed higher than it is, since taxing rents is superior to taxing wages or actual capital investment, and there are a trillion dollars or more of rents going undertaxed in our current system.
By taxing rent-seekers much higher, actual productive people and bona fide capital investment returns could be taxed less.
Win-win for everyone.
Ideally the military would have its act together and not allow rent-seeking slime like you chiseling our servicemen over finding SFHs to live convenient to the base.
However, doesn’t the landowner pay property taxes which helps pay for the good of the community?
Indirectly, yes, but with SFHs too much of the ground rent is being captured by the LL. LL’s didn’t create this value, but they are pocketing it. This is an economic fault in the system, a wealth drain from the working class to the wealthy via rents.
It is a large part why our current economic system is falling apart. Too much wealth collecting at the top, too much debt at the bottom.
This is all going to come crashing down eventually.

Not sure why so much name calling is necessary for you to get your point across. You have valid points.

I have no problem with the taxation you're describing. Taxing land vs income, taxing wealth vs income. Fine.

I'm not capturing any rent. My rent covers the carrying costs of these properties. I could raise the rent to improve my cash flow, but I prefer attracting long term tenants with a fair rent(though any rent probably wouldn't be fair to you) to get the steady equity pay down for securing my own future. Do you believe that I have the right to improve my wealth over time, or is any wealth other than putting my savings in the bottom of my mattress an anathema to you?

Please describe the scenario on how things could be made fair for military servicemen and their living circumstances. Soldier X joins the army. He gets paid wage y, enough to service a non downpayment 100% loan. No one can rent to him, so he's given a loan(offeed by a private bank or subsidized by the gov't?) to buy a home near the base without any down payment? He's shipped off to another base 5 years later. He must sell his home then? He can't rent it out, then he'd be the slime ll that you're against. Is that your solution? What if he can't sell it?