[mistursinistur]

Why does policy need to be "fair" to investors? New government policies move asset values (including real estate values!) in both directions all the time. Investors -- including homeowners -- are not entitled to an investment that always appreciates.

This belief that we cannot do a thing unless that thing benefits wealthy homeowners is harmful.

[WesleyLivesay]

In this case I believe it would have to be "fair" due to the political power of home owners in most areas of the United States. The fastest way to lose every vote from Suburbia is to lower the value of their greatest investment.

[taurath]

And this is how we get real estate bubbles. It’s already back to the “it’ll always go up” stage even after 2007, in most areas with decent jobs that might afford some security or ability to pay mortgages.

[st26]

As a general rule of thumb, screwing people by changing the rules on them harms investor confidence. The promise of future stability is an underrated part of our economy. See the FDIC. This is why many legal changes go to great pains to grandfather the old rules.

That's not to say the rules could never be changed. But just imagine being, for example, a small time landlord in the UK. Recently the rules changed, and you can no longer deduct mortgage interest as an operating expense from the rents you collect. Old mortgages are not grandfathered. This means a lot of existing rentals are suddenly & out of nowhere going to be losing their owners money. Thanks, government. Maybe it needed to happen, but it's a bit chilling to have that kind of rule change happen on you.

[rifung]

> Why does policy need to be "fair" to investors

I guess this is just an ethical question? I don't think it would be fair to those who recently bought a home if we just wiped out a substantial proportion of their assets.

> This belief that we cannot do a thing unless that thing benefits wealthy homeowners is harmful.

You perhaps misinterpreted my comment. I don't think they will benefit at all from a solution, but I would think a good solution should not be too devastating to any given person.

I'm less concerned about wealthy home owners than I am for those who just got a mortgage.

[uncoder0]

I agree why don't we just make a extremely burdensome property tax for non-primary residence properties that are not worked/workable land such a farm land? Maybe 5x property tax on your second property, 10x on your third, etc. Maybe it only kicks in and ramps up after a set number of months to allow developers to buy properties and develop them for sale but make it hard to hold them for too long in order to get a 'legit' owner in the house who will actually make it their home.

[ethanwillis]

Do you want more blight? This is how you get blight.