Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

I think one minor solution to eminent domain issues is that offers made on your property can be used to asses your property for higher taxes. E.g, you have a house worth $250k, someone offers you $500k for your home but you refused, your home gets reappraised at $500,000 and your taxes go up. After all, your property is more valuable!

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby ucim » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:53 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Remember that when a developer tries to build a big shiny condo or apartment complex, there's tons of opposition from the locals who like living in inefficient spacious homes. They then codify their opposition...

sardia wrote:The big issue is that people don't want to be jerks by eminent domaining a stubborn fools house. Once you freely do that, you've made everyone's lives better and harmed the few. Nobody likes that.

You seem to have the idea that I am not entitled to want what I want, but instead, should want what makes everyone else better off at my expense. This (housing, and life in general) is not a game where the object is to make the most efficient arrangement possible. People want what they want, and that should be respected. If they want "inefficient" stand-alone houses with yards and trees and lawn, they are not bad people for not wanting instead to live in an "efficient" little box inside a bigger box with no space to themselves and nothing growing around them.

Now, there are people that prefer to live in a vibrant area surrounded by people instead of grass, and that's great for them. But it's not a morally "better" choice, which you seem to imply. People are different.

Diadem wrote:Mortgage interest tax deduction is a terrible idea.

We have it in The Netherlands, and pretty much everybody across the political spectrum agrees that it's a bad idea.
Just because people in one area think it's a bad idea doesn't mean it's a bad idea. In addition to the possibility that those people could simply be wrong, it might also play into differences between a country whose land is created by walling off the ocean, and a country whose land is wide open from horizon to horizon. (Yeah, there's more than just land, but it's there for starters).

As to the arguments (raised by others) about having to build housing, no. Just no. People still have to live somewhere, whether they own the place or rent it. Encouraging people to own won't create more demand for housing because it reduces the demand for rental housing in proportion.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5771
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

You illustrated my point about why it's so difficult to build housing to match demand.

Does buying your land or taxing you count as respecting your wants? Because if you're not willing to pay for it, you don't want it very much. You seem pretty absolutist when you say respect. Seems pretty extreme to demand that with no exceptions.
Last edited by sardia on Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7289
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby Zamfir » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

ucim wrote:As to the arguments (raised by others) about having to build housing, no. Just no. People still have to live somewhere, whether they own the place or rent it. Encouraging people to own won't create more demand for housing because it reduces the demand for rental housing in proportion.

It makes owning more attractive relative to renting, but also makes spending on a house more attractive relative to all other things you can spend money on. That second part creates the extra demand for housing, not the renting vs owning part.

It' s also the largely the point of the deduction. The goal is to increase spending on the housing stock (as long-lasting objects with a savings-like character) as opposed to shorter lived consumption goods. In that light, it works similar to tax breaks for retirement accounts - a nudge to increase the savings rate of the country.

In the process, you draw in a lot of side effects. Some of the money goes indeed to expansion and improvement of the housing stock, but a lot goes to drive up the value of the land and of the existing stock. For the country as a whole, that part is purely fictional value, but it has large distributional effects.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You illustrated my point about why it's so difficult to build housing to match demand.

Does buying your land or taxing you count as respecting your wants? Because if you're not willing to pay for it, you don't want it very much. You seem pretty absolutist when you say respect. Seems pretty extreme to demand that with no exceptions.


I believe it's more that we shouldn't privilege one choice over another. Buying a house is perfectly fine. For some people, it's a good choice.

But so is renting. Controlling folks' behavior is something that law is supposed to do, yes, but generally we expect a certain degree of circumspection with regards to individual decisions. A tax break, eh...probably not good, but really hard to fix at this point. It'd be politically difficult to kill it, because people have made long term financial decisions counting on it continuing to exist.

Expanding eminent domain would be worse. I'd wager it'd mostly not be the wealthy who are inconvenienced, but all the "lessers" who must have their behavior changes forced upon them. It's silly for people to want McMansions, everyone says so. Fewer decry the actual mansions.

morriswalters
Posts: 6886
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think one minor solution to eminent domain issues is that offers made on your property can be used to asses your property for higher taxes. E.g, you have a house worth $250k, someone offers you $500k for your home but you refused, your home gets reappraised at $500,000 and your taxes go up. After all, your property is more valuable!
I think one problem with it is that they low ball homes when they do take them. The other is that if you have been in your home for thirty or so years it encompasses more than your property.
sardia wrote:You illustrated my point about why it's so difficult to build housing to match demand.
You haven't established to this point that there is a shortage. Maybe in New York or Silicon Valley, but nationwide? If I were in the market in my location I would have quite of selection of both new and older homes, either rental or condo. Even in the downtown area. It would be more likely to be vertical development downtown. And it took years to create that demand for homes downtown(gas prices helped). And if they aren't building as fast as they can get the materials I would be surprised.

Amusing thought, Calpers has a large real estate portfolio if I remember correctly.
Last edited by morriswalters on Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

And I take serious issue with the "expansion" of housing stock. This is often known as "urban sprawl", and it often converts productive farmland into housing, which has economic issues as well as environmental ones as new farmland needs to be built over previously uninhabited wilderness. And by spreading people into the suburbs you decrease the availability of public transport and increase the use of automobiles, creating more pollution and increasing imports of oil, which reduces the wealth of the country and causes even more problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:56 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And I take serious issue with the "expansion" of housing stock. This is often known as "urban sprawl", and it often converts productive farmland into housing, which has economic issues as well as environmental ones as new farmland needs to be built over previously uninhabited wilderness. And by spreading people into the suburbs you decrease the availability of public transport and increase the use of automobiles, creating more pollution and increasing imports of oil, which reduces the wealth of the country and causes even more problems.


Eh, I think the use of automobiles and oil hasn't hurt our country's wealth much so far. You could make a good case for it harming the environment, or the well being of other countries, but the US generally seems to come out on top so far as energy usage and wealth goes.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:00 pm UTC

But just imagine how much wealthier we'd be if we weren't using up so much oil?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But just imagine how much wealthier we'd be if we weren't using up so much oil?


We're using it because it's a cheap means of energy. That makes wealth. We'd be way worse off if we hadn't embraced using oil.

Now, sure, there's the shared cost of emissions, but so far, that hasn't actually hit the US in any significant wealth cost. Those costs are mostly future and/or deferred to other countries less able to cope.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3753
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby Dauric » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:08 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But just imagine how much wealthier we'd be if we weren't using up so much oil?

It would reduce the demand for oil, shifting the demand curve, and reducing the price of oil (greater fuel efficiency being one of many reasons for the drop in oil and gas prices over the last decade). Now in theory this means less wealth spent on oil overall, but it also means that the supply of oil (existing in barrels as well as in untapped resources) drops in value, -and- you get people previously making money in the oil and gas industry as well as other ancillary industries who end up unemployed.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

morriswalters
Posts: 6886
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:04 pm UTC

I can live with that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5771
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:But just imagine how much wealthier we'd be if we weren't using up so much oil?

It would reduce the demand for oil, shifting the demand curve, and reducing the price of oil (greater fuel efficiency being one of many reasons for the drop in oil and gas prices over the last decade). Now in theory this means less wealth spent on oil overall, but it also means that the supply of oil (existing in barrels as well as in untapped resources) drops in value, -and- you get people previously making money in the oil and gas industry as well as other ancillary industries who end up unemployed.

For OPEC countries, oil falling is a tragedy. For the US, any losses in jobs are off set by gains in cheaper gas and energy. One of the perks of a diversified economy.

There are better reasons why we should fight urban sprawl. The economy becomes more efficient because cities can be denser, citizens gain time that was previously spent in cars. Money spent on gas is redirected towards other purposes. Since mass transit makes a city denser, supply chain becomes more efficient. The engineers live next to the salesman who lives next to the customer. Utilities get more efficient because you have 1 large pipe of stuff instead of millions of small pipes.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

I would agree with you on everything, except for the fact that NYC seems to have no problem with the 2 hour commute.

morriswalters
Posts: 6886
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Has anybody ever lived in a high rise or have any idea about the effort it take to make them work? Fast facts on high rises. You're on the fifteenth floor and the plumbing stops up on fourteen, guess where the drains from the 20 floors above you drain to until you get back from your cruise, or until it leaks to the floor below you? And water flows downhill, guess what happens if the lights go off and your on 20? And when the sprinkler valve fails all that nasty, black, stinky water goes on your nice light carpet. Or more importantly, the budding pianist plays scales at 3 AM and just won't shut up. But carry on hive rats, I like grass. The more of you that go vertical them more room left for me.:D

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:45 pm UTC

I've spent quite a bit of time in a 20 story apartment building. Does that count as a highrise?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5771
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:28 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Has anybody ever lived in a high rise or have any idea about the effort it take to make them work? Fast facts on high rises. You're on the fifteenth floor and the plumbing stops up on fourteen, guess where the drains from the 20 floors above you drain to until you get back from your cruise, or until it leaks to the floor below you? And water flows downhill, guess what happens if the lights go off and your on 20? And when the sprinkler valve fails all that nasty, black, stinky water goes on your nice light carpet. Or more importantly, the budding pianist plays scales at 3 AM and just won't shut up. But carry on hive rats, I like grass. The more of you that go vertical them more room left for me.:D

Grass is a luxury for the bourgeoisie. In all seriousness, it's equally true that feeding in miles of piping to get 1 extra dude his water, sewage, electricity, food, clothes, etc etc is just as hard, and much less efficient. Don't you realize how strange it is to devote vast acres of valuable land that's nothing more than paved rock and yellow paint? Or how there's billions of dollars of infrastructure built around storing huge amounts of chemical energy just so you can have a bit of green nonnative plantlife. Those roads aren't cheap, or all those highways or cars. And yet, we managed to overcome those obstacles. Figuring out how to build up a little isn't gonna be a problem.

morriswalters
Posts: 6886
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:33 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I've spent quite a bit of time in a 20 story apartment building. Does that count as a highrise?
Yes. I hope you enjoyed it. A person should enjoy their home. I on the other hand had to make sure that others enjoyed theirs. Not once in thirty years have I had to complain about someone playing Chopan in my home. However there is a certain tranquility to be found in watching the weather from the roof or collecting the rent from AT&T for those funny little antennas.

I almost missed you Sardia.
Sardia wrote:Grass is a luxury for the bourgeoisie. In all seriousness, it's equally true that feeding in miles of piping to get 1 extra dude his water, sewage, electricity, food, clothes, etc etc is just as hard, and much less efficient. Don't you realize how strange it is to devote vast acres of valuable land that's nothing more than paved rock and yellow paint? Or how there's billions of dollars of infrastructure built around storing huge amounts of chemical energy just so you can have a bit of green nonnative plantlife. Those roads aren't cheap, or all those highways or cars. And yet, we managed to overcome those obstacles. Figuring out how to build up a little isn't gonna be a problem.
You have heard of parking garages, haven't you? I once saw one that had garage spaces which were buried with grass upon the roof. Did you think the the bourgeoisie don't like grass? Or landscaping? Sorry. Your garage can be 3 stories or more tall. And if the neighborhood is space limited the spaces can actually be deeded. Which can lead to some interesting legal dilemmas. And they love neatly mowed lawns and hire landscapers to tend to the little jewel box landscapes. And for urban areas the utilities that exist, exist because of all those single family homes that came before. Everywhere isn't New York. The assumption of your screed is that you can have one without the other. The sum of all this is, in cities all those things already exist. One could assume that they were predicated on all those single family dwellings, not 20 story high rises. So if you replace 100 single family dwellings with 50, 20 story complexes with 100 families you shouldn't expect those previous utilities to support them. Life ain't simple..

Having said the before, my main objection is to the cost. Poor people need not apply. Too many gotchas. If I had money I would move into one without a moments hesitation. But there are things to think about that most people don't. For instance if the building is damaged beyond repair how much does it cost to be razed? And what do you do about that pianist?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:38 am UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Has anybody ever lived in a high rise or have any idea about the effort it take to make them work? Fast facts on high rises. You're on the fifteenth floor and the plumbing stops up on fourteen, guess where the drains from the 20 floors above you drain to until you get back from your cruise, or until it leaks to the floor below you? And water flows downhill, guess what happens if the lights go off and your on 20? And when the sprinkler valve fails all that nasty, black, stinky water goes on your nice light carpet. Or more importantly, the budding pianist plays scales at 3 AM and just won't shut up. But carry on hive rats, I like grass. The more of you that go vertical them more room left for me.:D

Grass is a luxury for the bourgeoisie. In all seriousness, it's equally true that feeding in miles of piping to get 1 extra dude his water, sewage, electricity, food, clothes, etc etc is just as hard, and much less efficient. Don't you realize how strange it is to devote vast acres of valuable land that's nothing more than paved rock and yellow paint? Or how there's billions of dollars of infrastructure built around storing huge amounts of chemical energy just so you can have a bit of green nonnative plantlife. Those roads aren't cheap, or all those highways or cars. And yet, we managed to overcome those obstacles. Figuring out how to build up a little isn't gonna be a problem.


I actually take issue with nonnative plantlife. Especially in deserts; if your lawn can't survive the natural environment you live in, don't have a lawn. Have a giant sandbox, a zen rock garden, whatever, but not a lawn.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5771
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:06 am UTC

Morris, when you suggest not building high density housing because people want a whitepicket fenced home, a la leave it to beaver, what does that do to housing prices? The rich will always have homes near the best spots. Aren't you perpetuating the same issue of high cost homes pricing out poorer people? The economics state that if there are less homes, (or the demand increases, but supply cannot due to current homeowners putting up obstacles to sell) then prices for homes are going to increase. That pushes out new residents who are forced to live further and further away. The poorer you are, the farther you have to travel. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/in ... f=business

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby ucim » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:54 am UTC

sardia wrote:Does buying your land or taxing you count as respecting your wants?
Uh... yes. Absent eminent domain, you can't buy my land unless I sell it to you, and we agree on a price. And you can't tax me unless I agree to it. Granted, in the latter case it's by proxy through the democratic process, but I'm not sure in any case what you are getting at.

In the case of eminent domain, the price is dictated to you by the taker - it's more like robbery than a sale between willing participants. It has its uses, but can easily be abused. Abuse of eminent domain however is a different issue.

Tyndmyr wrote:It's silly for people to want McMansions, everyone says so.
No it isn't. And no they don't.

CorruptUser wrote:And I take serious issue with the "expansion" of housing stock. This is often known as "urban sprawl"...
But I take issue with the idea that my housing choices are "bad" if they don't promote maximum efficiency for the rest of the populace. That's not why I make my housing choices. In any case, there are local zoning laws that regulate urban sprawl, on a local level, based on the local people living there locally. Because they are the ones that know how they want to live.

sardia wrote:There are better reasons why we should fight urban sprawl. The economy becomes more efficient because cities can be...
...but I don't want to live like that, and I certainly don't want to have to live like that. Cities have many downsides.

sardia wrote:The poorer you are, the farther you have to travel.
Why is this a problem? Sure, it's another way it sucks to be poor, but why shouldn't those who have money be able to gain benefits from that money? This is one of them.

In most cases, if you can afford it, purchasing your home is a good investment; probably the best initial investment you can make. By not penalizing this investment, people are encouraged to own their own home.

I believe that a country whose citizens own their own home - their own piece of the fatherland - is better off than the country where citizens are all transients. You seem to disagree.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:06 am UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:And I take serious issue with the "expansion" of housing stock. This is often known as "urban sprawl"...
But I take issue with the idea that my housing choices are "bad" if they don't promote maximum efficiency for the rest of the populace. That's not why I make my housing choices. In any case, there are local zoning laws that regulate urban sprawl, on a local level, based on the local people living there locally. Because they are the ones that know how they want to live.


Except if you need the rest of us to subsidize you in order to make your choice, we have the right to tell you what your options are.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby ucim » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:24 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Except if you need the rest of us to subsidize you in order to make your choice, we have the right to tell you what your options are.
Yes, which is why (at least in the US) the subsidies and choices are voted on by the community.

We, as a country, have decided (and I agree with the decision) that home ownership is a Good Thing, and should be encouraged via the tax code.

We, as a town, have decided that single family homes need to be surrounded by an acre of land (ymmv), and that apartment buildings can only be built in certain areas of town, and must have the following setbacks and height restrictions.

We've decided on many other rules consistent with the laws of the nation which tell me what my options are. All of these rules impose costs on some and benefits to others. Nonetheless, the general framework still leaves a lot of freedom for me to decide how I want to live, and that is a Good Thing.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:24 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

elasto
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:24 am UTC

ucim wrote:I believe that a country whose citizens own their own home - their own piece of the fatherland - is better off than the country where citizens are all transients. You seem to disagree.

In continental Europe it's fairly common for people to rent a single house for a decade or two, with both house prices and rent fairly stable. 'Renting' doesn't have to equate to 'transient'.

If legal protections for renters are in place and the market is properly balanced, the upsides to renting can be as powerful as the upsides to owning.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby ucim » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:32 am UTC

elasto wrote:...'Renting' doesn't have to equate to 'transient'....
True, but the US is not Europe. In the US, long term home rentals are not so common.

But in any case, my point is that people who own a piece of the country feel a greater stake in it, and people who feel a greater stake in their country make the country stronger. Of course, many other things contribute to the stake a person feels in their government, but at least here, I think this is a fairly big one. European traditions are different (e.g. rules about trespass). Also much of Europe is governed differently from the US, especially going back in history. The US has pretty much always been a democracy; we've never had a king. (I hope that doesn't change in the next four years!) Europe has a history of top-down governance. Maybe that plays into the difference between where we are each coming from.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5771
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:49 am UTC

Ucim, are you actually in a city that's threatening to redevelop low density housing into high density housing? And are you differentiating between property owned in a city as part of a building, vs a lot in a stereotypical suburb? You seem to be taking the evidence personally.

Spoiler:
PS, there's no evidence that real estate grows faster than traditional stocks, nor is it considered as good of an investment as people think it is. I'd even say it's a no growth investment. I'd fund a 401k/IRA before a mortgage.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... tment.aspx

Note 2: Despite your protests that economic efficiency shouldn't be a priority, you are giving up real value and earnings when you anchor yourself, or encourage the country at large to anchor themselves to one location. You may be comfortable where you're at in life, but that's not a choice others will make willingly. There's a lot of fancy economic terms for this kind of stuff, but it all comes down to the bottom line. You, or the public, will make more money if you can move. Ease of Housing is a major factor in making more money. Economic efficiency is a major factor in making money.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7289
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby Zamfir » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:44 am UTC

True, but the US is not Europe. In the US, long term home rentals are not so common.

To the contrary, home ownership in the US is comparable to Europe, a tad on the low side even Eurostat US census

elasto's "continental Europe" with a large rental market (compared to the Uk or the US) is limited to Germany and Switzerland, perhaps Austria.
The rest of north and west Europe has a similar distribution as the US, the mediteranean countries have a noticably higher ownership rate, and eastern Europe has very high rates. That's mostly due to mass privatization in the 90s, though home ownership under the communists was higher than you might perhaps expect.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8656
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:53 am UTC

Of course, ownership under the Commies wasn't pleasant. Post WWII, Eastern Europe was playing "musical villages", where vast swaths of the population were forced to simply march around several hundred miles and swap homes. The new homes were always worse than what you had previously, unless you happened to be a well connected official of course.

morriswalters
Posts: 6886
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:16 am UTC

sardia wrote:Morris, when you suggest not building high density housing because people want a whitepicket fenced home, a la leave it to beaver, what does that do to housing prices? The rich will always have homes near the best spots. Aren't you perpetuating the same issue of high cost homes pricing out poorer people? The economics state that if there are less homes, (or the demand increases, but supply cannot due to current homeowners putting up obstacles to sell) then prices for homes are going to increase. That pushes out new residents who are forced to live further and further away. The poorer you are, the farther you have to travel. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/in ... f=business
High density housing has issues. Particularly with the poor. It will be built anyway of course, just don't expect it in and of itself to solve any problems.

They don't take housing from the rich with eminent domain. They take it from the poor who are less able to fight. As an example we just built a bridge in a wealthier part of town, it took 20 or so years to beat the legal hurdles thrown in the way, and the project was forced to build a tunnel to miss 1 house which the owners had placed on the Historic Register of Homes. When they lost they sold the land to the state anyway.

In the meantime all our public housing projects were torn down in the inner city belt and replaced with mixed use apartments. That needed to happen but it forced the poor out and gentrified the area. The thing is that the housing stock in this country is built by developers trying to make as much money as they can, not by people trying to sell homes to the poor or build rental units for the same. Housing in the city will always be expensive since the land has homes on it already. Suburban locations use raw land. You can't beat those type of economics.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries Cooked The Books on Pensions, (Maybe?)

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:06 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Except if you need the rest of us to subsidize you in order to make your choice, we have the right to tell you what your options are.
Yes, which is why (at least in the US) the subsidies and choices are voted on by the community.

We, as a country, have decided (and I agree with the decision) that home ownership is a Good Thing, and should be encouraged via the tax code.


I'm okay with declaring that a mistake. It might be popular, but likely for the wrong reasons.

I also disagree that renting is bad, or necessarily transient. I've rented my current home for a few years, and have no particular inclination to move.

Owning is fine. Renting is also fine. In an ideal world, both are supported equally. Neither should require widespread eminent domain.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby Liri » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:19 pm UTC

I would argue the growth of the Anywhere, USA suburbia is a Bad Thing, regardless if it means more people are homeowners. Living in a mediocre, often poorly built house, far away from your workplace - like others said - is incredibly unsustainable.

And boo to non-native plants!
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:44 am UTC

sardia wrote:Ucim, are you actually in a city that's threatening to redevelop low density housing into high density housing?
Actually, yes. Or more accurately, to put high density housing in the last stretch of wilderness that my town has, where my town is mostly low density private homes that enjoy that wilderness. The developer used state laws which grant developers immunity to zoning rules if they develop low-income housing. We fought that for years, and ended up buying the land and giving it over to the state to make a state park. It cost us something like twelve or thirteen million dollars. (There is a lot of mustarded politics to it, but the developer bought it from IBM for eight million.) Nice profit for the developers, just for hiring lawyers.

sardia wrote:Despite your protests that economic efficiency shouldn't be a priority, you are giving up real value and earnings when you anchor yourself...You, or the public, will make more money if you can move. ...
No, I'm spending money for intangible value. My life's purpose isn't to amass value and earnings, it is to live and enjoy life, and what money I've earned goes towards that end. Part of this is knowing that no landlord can kick me out, and that my neighbors feel a real stake in the community.

Zamfir wrote:To the contrary, home ownership in the US is comparable to Europe
... and it seems to be high in the Dominican Republic too - even the destitute own the shacks they live in.

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm okay with declaring [the idea that home ownership is a Good Thing] a mistake. It might be popular, but likely for the wrong reasons.
Well, we disagree then (with the caveat that I'm not advocating that people own homes they cannot afford).
Tyndmyr wrote:I also disagree that renting is bad, or necessarily transient. I've rented my current home for a few years, and have no particular inclination to move.
I agree with you here. However, should the town start to deteriorate, would you be inclined to simply move to a better area, or stick around and help make the town better? I posit that owning your home; that is, making a consious decision that this is where you will be living, would make one more likely to stay. Similarly, getting married vs shacking up. Nothing wrong with cohabitating, and it's true that many marriages dissolve, but I suspect that the making of the decision that you are the one I want to spend my life with has a strong effect on one's willingness to stay and grow together.
Tyndmyr wrote:Owning is fine. Renting is also fine. In an ideal world, both are supported equally. Neither should require widespread eminent domain.
True. I was not supporting the use of eminent domain to promote home ownership. I was just supporting the tax breaks for mortgage interest.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:37 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I also disagree that renting is bad, or necessarily transient. I've rented my current home for a few years, and have no particular inclination to move.
I agree with you here. However, should the town start to deteriorate, would you be inclined to simply move to a better area, or stick around and help make the town better? I posit that owning your home; that is, making a consious decision that this is where you will be living, would make one more likely to stay. Similarly, getting married vs shacking up. Nothing wrong with cohabitating, and it's true that many marriages dissolve, but I suspect that the making of the decision that you are the one I want to spend my life with has a strong effect on one's willingness to stay and grow together.


Oh, I'll move out if the neighborhood goes to crap, of course.

And that's fine. I'll still live somewhere. In terms of my economic footprint, and whatever else I add to the community, that's still happening, just not in the same place.

Being stuck in a neighborhood that's going to hell and not having the freedom to escape sounds bad. One of the downsides of home ownership, not the upsides.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, I'll move out if the neighborhood goes to crap, of course.
... and that's my point. You call home ownership "being stuck", and yes, it can be. However, for those that choose it, their "being stuck" is a benefit to the neighborhood, helping it not go to crap. And if everyone has a stake in not letting it go to crap, it's much less likely to do so.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

Detroit is still Detroit, if you're stuck there due to an underwater mortgage or not.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Acutaries on Pensions, & Housing

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Detroit is still Detroit, if you're stuck there due to an underwater mortgage or not.
You are correct - home ownership is not a panacea. I did not claim it was.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jewish_scientist, Leovan, Majestic-12 [Bot], plytho and 8 guests