|
|
|
|
|
|
by risyachka
7 days ago
|
|
|
>> Incentives to reduce the value of their largest asset are not strong Its not just incentives. It can nuke entire economy if done not carefully. Ideally new housing supply would be slowly increasing so that prices stop growing and there are incentives to invest into other assets but at the same time not reduce the wealth people have been building for many years. But overall it seems like the world would be a much better and prosperous place if basic need like housing would be more of a commodity than a wealth driver. If you have housing you can spend your income on building companies, wealth, experiments etc. If you spend 30 years buying a place to live - obviously your hands are tight pretty badly. |
|
|
You can only ever realize the gain of wealth of owning a home when you sell, which means you probably need a place to live now, so you rent, or buy another house. Maybe if you buy a smaller home than the one you moved out of you can pocket the difference, but because prices keep going up, that doesn’t seem very feasible either, less so if the home you sold wasn’t large to begin with.
I don’t get it. I much prefer owning to renting, and I have never considered owning a home more than a liability. In fact I need to annually make sure my insurance coverage is greater than the value of my home in case I get sued for some reason, just so “they” can’t come after my home.
I feel the same way about wills and people passing away. 95% of the time, by the time your parents die you’re either retired or close to it. I plan to provide for my kids when they’re least able to (college thru about age 30) and figure out after that if I want my last check to bounce or not.
We have such a backwards way of looking at wealth, it boggles my mind.