Some of it is that it needs to be profitable to be a reality. If they gave you 300k and you paid back the exact percentage of 35years x 12 months each month they’d lose money.
Other parts are that you’re competing with their other opportunities.
It’s a necessary evil unfortunately.
What you should be asking is why can corporations own land. Residential land is for people only, that would lower costs and give more of a chance to the people.
Corporations owning land is the current way many young / low income people get housing.
Renting is cheaper for people that might move in ~5 years. Moving citys is an important way to gain income.
I think baning cooperate ownership of “residential land” would be another government handout to owners at the expense of renters. Id prefer policies that increase housing supply instead. For example, investment in nonmarket housing, and permitting reform favoring infill development.
I’m not banning landlords I’m banning vulture funds, pension funds, agencies, conglomerates, multinationals etc. from owning homes.
This makes for less competition in buying homes for those people, allowing for prices to stay realistic. So you can buy two houses if you want, though I’d tax the shit out of you for the second and subsequent houses.
Also if you weren’t competing with corporations rents would be lower, but you could buy a house and sell again in five years when you move on.
I’m not banning landlords I’m banning vulture funds, pension funds, agencies, conglomerates, multinationals etc. from owning homes.
I guess i missunderstood you. As far as I’ve seen, vacancies are quite low in places where housing is scarce. Investment properties are usually rented out.
would be lower, but you could buy a house and sell again in five years when you move on.
Closing costs are very high. It would be difficult to make housing cheap enough that the benifits to owning a home outweighs these costs. Also, you would need to sell the house quick, so that you don’t pay for two houses at a time. But if housing was no longer scarce, it would be hard to sell the house quick.
I cant imaging a future where it makes sense for everyone to own their own home. We should always consider renters when making public policy, even though they have little political power.
By nonmarket housing, i mean housing that’s either own and run by the government, owned and run by nonprofits (probably funded by the government), or owned and run by coops.
In my part of the world, public housing is a bad word, (due to bad examples caused by government disinvestment) so I try to use other words.
Generally speaking they have way lower interest rates because they have financial incentive and legal requirements to raise their members credit/capital.
Some of it is that it needs to be profitable to be a reality. If they gave you 300k and you paid back the exact percentage of 35years x 12 months each month they’d lose money.
Other parts are that you’re competing with their other opportunities.
It’s a necessary evil unfortunately.
What you should be asking is why can corporations own land. Residential land is for people only, that would lower costs and give more of a chance to the people.
Corporations owning land is the current way many young / low income people get housing.
Renting is cheaper for people that might move in ~5 years. Moving citys is an important way to gain income.
I think baning cooperate ownership of “residential land” would be another government handout to owners at the expense of renters. Id prefer policies that increase housing supply instead. For example, investment in nonmarket housing, and permitting reform favoring infill development.
I’m not banning landlords I’m banning vulture funds, pension funds, agencies, conglomerates, multinationals etc. from owning homes.
This makes for less competition in buying homes for those people, allowing for prices to stay realistic. So you can buy two houses if you want, though I’d tax the shit out of you for the second and subsequent houses.
Also if you weren’t competing with corporations rents would be lower, but you could buy a house and sell again in five years when you move on.
I guess i missunderstood you. As far as I’ve seen, vacancies are quite low in places where housing is scarce. Investment properties are usually rented out.
Closing costs are very high. It would be difficult to make housing cheap enough that the benifits to owning a home outweighs these costs. Also, you would need to sell the house quick, so that you don’t pay for two houses at a time. But if housing was no longer scarce, it would be hard to sell the house quick.
I cant imaging a future where it makes sense for everyone to own their own home. We should always consider renters when making public policy, even though they have little political power.
You might be saying this but you used some jargon I don’t know of.
The government can just build the goddamn rental houses, townhomes, and complexes. Remove corporations from the equation. Done.
By nonmarket housing, i mean housing that’s either own and run by the government, owned and run by nonprofits (probably funded by the government), or owned and run by coops.
In my part of the world, public housing is a bad word, (due to bad examples caused by government disinvestment) so I try to use other words.
Credit union
Credit unions still charge interest so I’m really curious what you’re trying to get at here …
Generally speaking they have way lower interest rates because they have financial incentive and legal requirements to raise their members credit/capital.