• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Shouldn't Home Prices Go Down Over Time?

Because other skyscrapers want to be built on that patch of dirt and many developers are willing to pay you a premium to be close to that other skyscraper.

Let's keep in mind that value is relative, these are not objective intrinsic attributes of land here. To discuss how land is valued is to discuss not the value of land, but human behavior.
I'm fine with the land going up in value. I'm not fine with the property owner collecting all of the benefit despite doing no labor.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Doesn't answer the question. But does beg a couple more.

Who in your world hires and pays your nation of all laborers?

Who attends to the distribution of the product of your nation of laborers?

Who develops the new innovations and assumes the risk and reward in your nation of laborers?

That's the beauty of the market system. The questions become self answering. If 1 million laborers need housing, 10,000 landlords will step in and provide it using labor who then get a pay check.

Food gets moved where it's needed. California to NYC, by an entrepreneur in Chicago who makes a buck in the process. Truck drivers get paid.
I'm not a Communist. I don't want a society of only physical laborers. As I've said repeatedly, there's are other options besides communism and capitalism.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
You asked "why". A "why" doesn't need an argument for a replay, just the answer. I gave you the answer to "why". Here's the next:

Because it works better than all the other things we've tried.
Are you saying that China hasn't been successful? They're still very much centrally land despite liberalizing much of the economy.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
And, in the converse, if a smelly pig farm or garbage dump is built adjacent to the property, are you against the owner taking a loss? You're against the owner profiting from the increased value, but you have no problem with them taking a loss. Interesting.

So in your world, there should be no upside to speculative investing in real estate, but there should be a huge downside. Interesting.
Amazing how you decide what I believe and then criticize it even though I never stated that was my belief.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
When we buy a car, the value immediately drops once we drive it. It continues to lose value over time. The same is true of computers. The same is true of just about all consumer goods that wear out. The only things that don't lose value are the things that don't degrade, like precious metals. So what is the deal with housing? Why has the cost of housing gone up faster than inflation? Houses degrade with time. A home built 30 years ago, without maintenance, is far less valuable than a home built brand new, so what's the deal?

The issue is land. Land becomes more scarce over time and thus increases in value. As it goes up, the owner now controls more wealth despite doing absolutely nothing to increase the wealth of society. What was worth $50,000 years ago can be worth $500,000 now simply because the land has become more valuable. Continued unimpeded, this leads to the problem we have today, where young people are delaying family formation and are spending more on housing costs than previous generations. This is terrible for society, as our young people remain mired in debt and land owners reap all of the benefits. It's not a good thing that a home costs about 10 years of income whereas in the past it was less than 7 years of income. How do we fix this?

My argument is the following:
1. Increase property taxes greatly on non-primary residences.
2. Eliminate property taxes entirely on primary residences.
3. Eliminate exemptions such as depreciation and maintenance that are currently used as subsidies for landlords.
4. Tax rental income above the rates of normal income.

This way, we establish real property ownership as a good thing. We favor family home ownership in the desire that all families will be able to live on property that they own. We also discourage speculation on land and viewing land as a means of production and generator of wealth. It is neither of these things, and experience has shown that this process, if continued unabated, will lead to only fewer and fewer people owning land and owning most of a country's wealth.

This proposal is entirely reasonable, fair to home owners, and punitive only to those who are getting wealthy through no work of their own. It will lead to a more prosperous, fairer society where people can mature, grow old, and do the real important work in life, which is to start their families and settle down.

The free market does well in a number of places except for healthcare and real estate
 
The free market does well in a number of places except for healthcare and real estate
It seems to have no upper limit when it comes to necessities that are capital intensive.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Again, I get it. I just fail to see why people should be getting rich for doing no work. If a freeway is built near my home and the property value goes up, so should collect that benefit? Me, or society?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

One solution though no one will accept as long as we have Republicans is State ownership of land and leasing according to ability to pay where the lease holder would own the structure and a permanent right to lease the land it would pay only according to Ability to pay. If the lease holder and structure owner sells the structure the new lease would be negotiated with the government according to the new leaseholders ability to pay.

The reason I support this idea is because land cannot be manufactured as other products can to keep prices down --one can manufacture things to meet the demand. this is impossible with land and therefore should be taken out of the free-market entirely
 
One solution though no one will accept as long as we have Republicans is State ownership of land and leasing according to ability to pay where the lease holder would own the structure and a permanent right to lease the land it would pay only according to Ability to pay. If the lease holder and structure owner sells the structure the new lease would be negotiated with the government according to the new leaseholders ability to pay.

The reason I support this idea is because land cannot be manufactured as other products can to keep prices down --one can manufacture things to meet the demand. this is impossible with land and therefore should be taken out of the free-market entirely
It's an approach, one that I don't agree with entirely because I think people should be able to truly own their land, but at least it doesn't neglect the problem as most everyone in this thread has been propagandized to do.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Amazing how you decide what I believe and then criticize it even though I never stated that was my belief.

OK, I'll ask you directly: If the property value goes down, as in the scenario I described, are you against the owner taking a loss?
 
He forgets about upkeep and everything else that goes into owning property.
Yep, he things you just buy a property, move to Hawaii and watch the money roll in. It's as if his ideal condition is every one just doing manual labor day in and day out and then their children doing the same thing.
 
His ownership of shares of a company does nothing to keep the business running. He could die and nothing would change with the company.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Are you serious? Most inheritors continue to operate the family business.
 
Machinery, factories, etc. Invest in the means of production, things that increase wealth creation. A home is not a means of production.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
LOL, maybe not, but everyone needs one.
 
Then he has that money to live off of. Money alone does not create wealth. If it did, we could just print enough to make everyone a millionaire and send scarcity.

Money is not a means of production.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
This makes no sense.
 
I'm not a Communist. I don't want a society of only physical laborers. As I've said repeatedly, there's are other options besides communism and capitalism.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

I never said you were a communist. But you never answered any question.

I'd be curious as to what those other options would be.
 
No, I specifically mentioned maintenance. However, you can do all the maintenance in the world on a car. It's still going to be worth less than a new one.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

There are always new cars. There is a finite amount of land.

I assume you are not a land owner, but if you are, are you going to sell it for what you bought it for?
 
I'm fine with the land going up in value. I'm not fine with the property owner collecting all of the benefits despite doing no labor.
Laborers have to be paid, there's a whole industry complete with unions enforcing that fact.
 
When we buy a car, the value immediately drops once we drive it. It continues to lose value over time. The same is true of computers. The same is true of just about all consumer goods that wear out. The only things that don't lose value are the things that don't degrade, like precious metals. So what is the deal with housing? Why has the cost of housing gone up faster than inflation? Houses degrade with time. A home built 30 years ago, without maintenance, is far less valuable than a home built brand new, so what's the deal?

The issue is land. Land becomes more scarce over time and thus increases in value. As it goes up, the owner now controls more wealth despite doing absolutely nothing to increase the wealth of society. What was worth $50,000 years ago can be worth $500,000 now simply because the land has become more valuable. Continued unimpeded, this leads to the problem we have today, where young people are delaying family formation and are spending more on housing costs than previous generations. This is terrible for society, as our young people remain mired in debt and land owners reap all of the benefits. It's not a good thing that a home costs about 10 years of income whereas in the past it was less than 7 years of income. How do we fix this?

My argument is the following:
1. Increase property taxes greatly on non-primary residences.
2. Eliminate property taxes entirely on primary residences.
3. Eliminate exemptions such as depreciation and maintenance that are currently used as subsidies for landlords.
4. Tax rental income above the rates of normal income.

This way, we establish real property ownership as a good thing. We favor family home ownership in the desire that all families will be able to live on property that they own. We also discourage speculation on land and viewing land as a means of production and generator of wealth. It is neither of these things, and experience has shown that this process, if continued unabated, will lead to only fewer and fewer people owning land and owning most of a country's wealth.

This proposal is entirely reasonable, fair to home owners, and punitive only to those who are getting wealthy through no work of their own. It will lead to a more prosperous, fairer society where people can mature, grow old, and do the real important work in life, which is to start their families and settle down.
I not criticizing. I think it would be great if more people had money and owned homes; but, as a person who travels and needs multiple homes this obviously would just be more a challenge to solve rather than end to being a landlord; much like when I got hit with a x3 out of state tax.

The way I view homes, property taxes are nuisance to be offset by some form of passive income. In your scenario I may actual simply purchase more homes or use the rental incomes to supplement the higher costs and if rental income was unfairly taxed targeted. I likely could restructure how its paid out (mandatory common maintenance, commission based utilities etc for example) or get zoned as short-term housing that affordable enough for longterm stay.

You can get whatever law written. I and others are going to meet my goals one way or another. On that point my rental homes provided for many people who could never afford the risks and responsibilities of home ownership. The fact I rent out allows many people employment from cleaners, maintenance, repair, rental & security. As the landlord I additionally know I am much better equipt and able to maintain and upkeep the properties. I also very much do invest that income back in the economy.

I get that passive income seems wrong and your right the whole world can’t run if everyone is an investor or trust-fund baby. That not to say though they are not a fundamental part of how we run the modern world. You can say all you want that having slightly cheaper homes would benefit the average joe but honestly I just see less maintained homes, more bankruptcies from people making risky bets, less jobs as you kill the huge rental sector, cleaners, real estate agents, contraction, repair etc etc

Maybe the wealth gap is getting too big and the economic is shifting too much upward, but if you ask me its ‘income tax’ / low interest rates. How are you suppose to go from $0 to the top if the more you make the more the government takes who always pushes establishment which is already high wealthy. And how is the wealthy suppose to be pressured to invest when they can factor their current wealth 1000x at below market rates with loans.
 
Phattonez needs to reframe the issue for Trump supporters:

Faced with rising housing costs, young white couples in urban areas are having fewer children. Greedy landowners are robbing the Republicans of their future demographic base.
 
OK, I'll ask you directly: If the property value goes down, as in the scenario I described, are you against the owner taking a loss?

Sure. I think you should get back the same value that you bought it for. If you made improvements you should be compensated for that as best as possible. If you wrecked it you should face that cost also. I realize it's not perfect, but nothing is. It's still better than our current system.
 
Yep, he things you just buy a property, move to Hawaii and watch the money roll in.

Literally you can do just this if you have the resources. Buy some properties, hire property managers, hire accountants, and you get a nice income for doing nothing. Clearly this is not the experience of small-time landlords, as they're doing the property management, accounting, and a lot of the repairs themselves, but for big operators yes this is absolutely realistic.

It's as if his ideal condition is every one just doing manual labor day in and day out and then their children doing the same thing.

Where did I ever state that things like intellectual work, art, etc. are not real work?
 
Are you serious? Most inheritors continue to operate the family business.

And the ones who don't do any of the operating still get a slice of the pie, don't they?
 
This makes no sense.

This is not an argument. If money were a means of production, then we could just print more of it and get more production. Do you hold this position?
 
I never said you were a communist. But you never answered any question.

I'd be curious as to what those other options would be.

Government intervention in the economy can take innumerable forms.
 
There are always new cars. There is a finite amount of land.

I assume you are not a land owner, but if you are, are you going to sell it for what you bought it for?

If I make no improvements to the land, then I cannot in justice take profits for something I did not do. Those profits rightfully belong to the one who did make the improvements.
 
Back
Top Bottom