Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bArray 727 days ago
> Now, Colossal Order says, it will be based on a household’s income: “Even if they currently don’t have enough money in their balance to pay rent, they won’t complain and will instead spend less money on resource consumption.”

Good idea, negative reward for increased income. Sounds like a socialist utopia.

I believe a better option would be to remove mortgages. I have a few reasons for this:

1. Houses are priced based on what people are able to pay for them, they cannot hold more value than people can afford. Additionally, there is little incentive to purchase a home when you are old. A mortgage essentially allows a person to borrow significant amounts of money from their uncertain future.

2. Mortgages are becoming unreasonably long. There is nobody that can reasonably suggest that they can afford to repay a mortgage over a period of 50 years. You cannot predict that far into the future regarding your health or employability. We have people now getting mortgages that will last well into their retirement, there is no real hope of these being paid back.

3. In almost all economic turmoil, mortgage issues exasperate the problem. It very quickly becomes a negative feedback cycle. People fail to make payments, banks see increased mortgage risk exposure, mortgage rates are increased, people are less willing to get mortgages & more people fail to make payments, house prices drop significantly - suddenly multiple industries collapse.

Of course in practice this will not be achievable. Foreign investors would still have access to borrowed money that is difficult to track. People would still be able to borrow money through non-official routes (family and friends).

Annec data: We built several houses in the UK ourselves (paying contractors where required). Including the cost of land, our time and all other expenses, the houses were instantly worth 2x once built. In the 10 years or so they have existed, they are now worth 3-4x the original investment. It doesn't add up.

2 comments

> It doesn't add up.

It adds up when you realise that the number of people entering the country (by birth or net legal/illegal immigration or asylum) is far higher than the number of new homes being built.

It's not working even where this is not true.
I have observed the new European right-wing neo-liberal sunrise with great interest, and I think the "people entering the coutry", aka "asylum seekers and other pesky poor people I don't like" (where there still is social housing) or "IT professionals and bank boys and all those pesky rich hipsters I don't like" (for gentrified/gentrifying cities) are a much smaller part of the problem than it seems. It is easy to blame them because they are foreigners and thus don't vote, and it makes "externalising" the problem (which is multifaceted, complex, and absolutely the fault of the current generation of politicians/investors and the middle class) easy - it gives you a super simple "guilty party" you can smack at with a baton and feel good about it. Where as you might be a part of the problem (that lovely single family home you have invested in so well could have been a 4-story housing unit for 4 families, but it wouldn't have been your investment pot, wouldn't it?)

I think NIMBYism and financialisation of housing in general is the actual problem here. If it is a financial instrument to invest into a mortgage or development and you can expect those insane returns simply by being able to "afford" a home - you will naturally be skewed towards making homes more expensive and less available, as scarcity raises value. Where I am it is the trope of the last year or two in politics that "those pesky foreigners have gobbled up all the real estate", all the while construction is regulated up the wazoo, older people do not allow hardly an electricity cabinet to be built even if they can see it with binoculars...

It is in the interest of those who bought their houses early and for cheap (some - even before the Euro) and (some) paid off the mortgages. Since pension schemes are getting dismantled, and solidarity is decreasing - a lot of people tend to see "selling the big house" as their only plausible way to have savings that do not depreciate and do not get taxed. And they sure AF do not want housing to be more affordable, because their pretty single-family home will become more affordable too. Boo boo foreigners.

Naturally they would not want this investment to depreciate.

Mortgages not balanced with rents are certainly a problem, as are fiscal benefits to those taking mortgages (and the general neo-liberal thing with taxing investment way less than income). But the biggest issue IMO is the fact that housing is investment first, basic need second. This needs to change if folks in populated western countries want to live... somewhere.

> It is easy to blame them because they are foreigners and thus don't vote

I don't care if people vote. That doesn't inform my opinion on supply and demand.

> asylum seekers and other pesky poor people I don't like

If you're saying something that only attacks a person's imagined character, and not their argument, you shouldn't say it.

> If it is a financial instrument to invest into a mortgage or development and you can expect those insane returns simply by being able to "afford" a home

It's become a financial instrument because of the likelihood of future increase in demand vs supply.

In the UK, the native indigenous people have a birth rate below replacement rate (note that 'native indigenous' is not 'UK-born' [1]), meaning the requirement for housing should be relatively low. In spite of this, the population of the UK in the last 10 years has increased by at least 6.8% [2].

It remains unclear why we are surprised there is suddenly a housing crisis. /s

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...

Mortgages are useful even if you don’t repay them. The mortgage gets settled upon death. And while alive it allows the lendee cash flow to live in a home.

It effectively becomes a shifted rent payment where instead of landlords, the person owns the house and services the interest.

I prefer this over the cash house method or just perpetual renting.

Mortgages are what allow the “middle class” to own homes, and not just royalty or rich.

> It effectively becomes a shifted rent payment where instead of landlords, the person owns the house and services the interest.

That's only true if you can keep up with payments. You'll soon learn what you do or don't own when you miss them. To be clear: You do not own your home until the last payment is made, ownership until that point is in name only.

> I prefer this over the cash house method or just perpetual renting.

Inflated house prices almost directly impacts the renting market. Rents are typically set at about 1% of purchase price [1] and then they tend to track the estimated house cost over time.

> Mortgages are what allow the “middle class” to own homes, and not just royalty or rich.

At least in the UK, a family where just the man worked would be able to buy his own home within 10 years. Mortgages allowed the housing market to set higher prices.

The problem with mortgages is that they are always looking to de-risk their investment, and as a result it prices out the the people who would need it [2].

[1] https://housinganywhere.com/United-Kingdom/calculate-rental-...

[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...

> That's only true if you can keep up with payments. You'll soon learn what you do or don't own when you miss them

Yes, of course. If you can’t make payments, then you’re in trouble. Just like if you can’t pay rent.

I think the basic assumption is that everyone has to pay for shelter, in some form or another.

You do actually own your home as soon as purchase is made. But you have a lien against the home for some amount.

If you can’t make payments, you don’t lose everything. You get what equity is remaining after expenses.

But then, even when you pay off the mortgage you still have obligations like taxes, insurance, etc.