• nednobbins@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    That sounds nice in theory but what happens when you want to sell your house?

    The only potential buyers would be people who either currently rent or are ready to sell their old house as soon as they buy yours.

    What if someone wants to fix it up first? Nope, they can’t do it. It will cut out the flippers but we’ve also just cut out all the renovators and restorers.

    We could do something like this (and it may not be a terrible idea) but there will definitely be a cost. If we add that law, all the people who currently own homes (that includes both investors and owner occupiers) will see the value of their real estate holdings drop. In the US, over 65% of people own their homes and for most of them, their home is their single biggest asset. Richer people can diversify more so while this law wouldn’t hurt the 35% who don’t currently own homes, it will disproportionately affect the poorer end of the 65% homeowners (who have proportionately more of their savings tied up in their home).

    If we don’t also address that problem at the same time we’ll create a cohort of people who can’t afford to retire because we killed their plan of downsizing when their kids move out and living off the difference.

    • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only potential buyers would be people who either currently rent or are ready to sell their old house as soon as they buy yours.

      What if someone wants to fix it up first? Nope, they can’t do it. It will cut out the flippers but we’ve also just cut out all the renovators and restorers.

      Not at all. They can buy and renovate all they want. They just have to sell it afterwards rather than rent it out.

        • cjsolx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why would anyone renovate a property if it’s just gonna sit on the market out of reach of potential customers? I would hope that investors would be smarter than that. Like we’re saying, homes should be for living, not for investing. If there’s no pressing need to renovate, then great. Don’t. Whoever wants to buy it as is now can. And if they want to they can renovate what they want at their own pace.

        • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair point. So we cap profit at 10% above purchase price, and hit the renovators with 90% taxes if the home hasn’t sold in, say, six months.

          • nednobbins@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We could. Why would anyone want to make those investments once we’ve cut off all their profit potential?

            Investors chase profits. We can cut off their profits but when we do that 2 things happen; some of them just leave the industry and some of them break the law to try to get around the regulations. Almost nobody just eats the loss and continues investing.

            • Roboticide@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              We didn’t cut off all their profit potential. It’s just limited.

              I don’t really see the problem with this hypothetical. Small time flippers are unaffected. 10% or whatever profit is still profit. If it disincentivizes big commercial flippers or investors because they can no longer make “enough” profit, good, that’s the point.

              • nednobbins@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The problem we see when we try to implement price controls is that they inevitably lead to shortages. The oil caps in the 70s are a famous example but the NYC rent controls were just as bad. The standard practice if you wanted an apartment was to look in the newspaper for open house listings that day. You would show up before the open house starts with at least 1 months rent plus first and last months rent as security deposit, in cash. If you liked the place you signed within the first half hour. If you waited someone else took the apartment.

                Part of the challenge is that it’s not as simple as a 10% profit cap. What if someone owns a house for 2 years? Do we cap it at 20% profit? Do we index the allowable profit to inflation and then add a “reasonable” offset? Do we want to allow different profit caps for different renovations? (maybe we don’t want to treat swimming pools and solar panels the same way?) How long do you need to live in a house to consider it owner occupied?

                As those regulations get more and more complicated you end up with a ton of loopholes. The more you do that the more profitable regulatory arbitrage becomes as a business model.

                In general, tight margins favor large companies over small firms. They can operate at such a large scale where they can thrive off of profit margins that would starve small businesses. That’s the general issue with mega-retailers. They operate on single digit margins. Mom and pop can’t streamline their operations enough to survive on those margins.

                Our housing stock needs both growth and maintenance. That comes from investment. If we push the private sector out of those investments without replacing them we’ll just end up with a crumbling housing infrastructure. If we cut large businesses out of it government would likely need to take up the slack. And to be clear that government intervention would need to be massive. The real estate market is huge and if we cut out the private sector we will definitely need to raise taxes, by a large amount, to cover it. That’s not off the table but we should walk into a decision like that with eyes wide open.

        • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one ha said that they can’t own more than one. They just can’t rent one while living in the other. The vacant one stays vacant.

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m assuming OP intends to specifically exclude rental companies. As near as I can tell this plan would also exclude individual renters. Not sure how that would play out if someone wanted to defray the cost of their home by renting out a room or subdividing their home.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you not maintain the things that you own just because there will never be a day where it is worth 10x what you paid for it?

        Btw I really want to meet these flippers and landlords who are maintaining their homes. Every time I have dealt with one they are obsessed with making it look like the house is great, not actually maintaining it. Oh wow you sprayed cookie dough smell before showing it, hey check out that black mold in the basement that stupidly has fucking sheetrock.