U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2011, 04:00 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,946,602 times
Reputation: 8928

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
What it says to me is that the homeowner is more likely to be a long term resident than the renter.

Some prefer to be transitory, moving to where ever it is most convenient for them. Others prefer a more permanent residence, even if it means a longer commute. However, it is more than just convenience for most homeowners. It is also about building equity.

Why rent and pay the mortgage for someone else, when you can buy and build equity? If one is not sure about their location, or have the kind of career that requires them to move around a great deal, then it might make more sense to rent. Otherwise, it makes more sense to buy.

Yes, landlords often jack up the rent whether expenses increase or not. Heck, Proposition 13 in California cut property taxes by more than half yet rents just keep rolling along upward.

Rent control would reduce displacement of renters and would promote long term residence and stability.

Most renters CAN'T buy and build equity. That's why most of us rent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2011, 04:05 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,832,974 times
Reputation: 4451
look at the new small houses being built. it shows that some people are really creative and have a lot of ingenuity, and that the drive for home ownership is universal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu9S...feature=fvwrel

unfortunately for americans, we are going down the ZIRP road that japan traveled down years ago. now homeownership in japan is quite an expensive proposition:
Ultra-small is beautiful for Japanese homeowner - CNN.com

30 square meters for 500,000 dollars.


it is funny that the opening post video was by homeowners (schiller with a summer home as well) talking about the joys of non-homeownership. yikes.

Last edited by floridasandy; 11-21-2011 at 04:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 04:30 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,946,602 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Then it's time to overturn said zoning laws.

Perhaps a constitutional amendment to overturn Euclid v. Ambler is in order.

What's funny about "rikosharprl"' bashing liberals is that they are responsible for that particular vision of home ownership as "the American Dream". A freer market would encourage more of what you advocate - smaller homes on small lots (or more ownership of multifamily units)

That is one hell of a tall order, so to speak. This nation of homeowners has erected for itself an array of government protections for homeowners which are virtually invulnerable to political attack. Homeowners DON'T WANT a freer market because they expect government to subsidize their property taxes (homestead exemptions and preferential property tax rates and terms) and prop up their property values by restricting competing land uses.

One goal of zoning (often no longer realized in our post-bubble world) is that newcomers to a neighborhood or community should (as long as property values continue to rise) have to have MORE money than the existing residents, thereby maintaining and promoting the status of its residents.

The homeowners of California have exhibited NO desire to end the unfair "welcome stranger!" property tax system of Proposition 13. Likewise, zoning isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Only if we become a nation of renters will there be any hope of freer markets. But we won't because even if the housing market fails to fully recover, homeowners will pass their homes down to children and grandchildren
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 19,704,313 times
Reputation: 6480
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Yes, landlords often jack up the rent whether expenses increase or not. Heck, Proposition 13 in California cut property taxes by more than half yet rents just keep rolling along upward.

Rent control would reduce displacement of renters and would promote long term residence and stability.

Most renters CAN'T buy and build equity. That's why most of us rent.
What utter nonsense. You can buy land for as little as $500 per acre with no property taxes and build your own home. You rent because you do not want to own a home. There is nothing wrong with renting, just do not pretend it is because you cannot afford a home. If you are paying rent, you can afford a mortgage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,506 posts, read 23,282,552 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Not necessarily. Many states have higher property taxes on rental property than on owner-occupied homes. For example, in Michigan, the school property tax rate on rental property is four times the school property tax rate on owner-occupied homes.

Homeowners aren't paying their fair share of property taxes in many states.
That is bcs their properties in MI have devalued= people walk away- file Chapter 13...etc...If they have no jobs how can they be expected to have a home

Not seeing any answers to this one- the real estate market is in the dumpster in most states now, and we can than The fed and WS bailouts for that.

Waiting to see their "brilliant" solution to making Americans even want to own a home when it depreciates in value....meanwhile municipalities continue to raise taxes.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:02 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,946,602 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
What utter nonsense. You can buy land for as little as $500 per acre with no property taxes and build your own home. You rent because you do not want to own a home. There is nothing wrong with renting, just do not pretend it is because you cannot afford a home. If you are paying rent, you can afford a mortgage.

Where I live, urban land was close to $500K per acre before the bubble aqnd it's probably still close to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,506 posts, read 23,282,552 times
Reputation: 8833
travel south there is no shortage of land and empty housing....Its a facade...there is massive supply now in many regions of U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:13 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,946,602 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post
That is bcs their properties in MI have devalued= people walk away- file Chapter 13...etc...If they have no jobs how can they be expected to have a home

Not seeing any answers to this one- the real estate market is in the dumpster in most states now, and we can than The fed and WS bailouts for that.

Waiting to see their "brilliant" solution to making Americans even want to own a home when it depreciates in value....meanwhile municipalities continue to raise taxes.....

Psst...look up "nonhomestead tax" and "Headlee override". Property taxes in Michigan are MUCH higher on rental property than on owner-occupied homes. While Michigan has a cap on annual property tax increases, the Headlee override allows homeowners to vote to override this cap on the nonhomestead tax they don't pay on their owner-occupied homes. Is this a great country or what? Back in 2000, the taxable value (limited by the cap) on rental property was approx 25% higher on rental prop than on equally-valued homestead property (because rental property is sold and revalued more often than owner-occ homes on average, plus Headlee overrides make the cap meaningless on rental property).

If you think owning a home is expensive, just try renting. Where I live, rents are up 8 (according to NAR) to 10 percent (according to a local real estate broker who specializes in investors and in rental property) over the same time last year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:43 PM
 
33,737 posts, read 14,795,038 times
Reputation: 7677
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Okay, but try growing up in today's times. There isn't the lifelong job that you'll retire from anymore unless you start your own business and even then you're likely going to fail once or twice before you eventually start a successful one.

Younger folks these days do go through many jobs (I think the last number I heard is 11-17) before they'll retire. If you want to continue to work after having been laid off or fired you need to be flexible.

There's a lot of changes going on and have been since the 70's and 80's due to globalization. Industries that were once "safe" are all up for grabs.
I don't understand how anything you said has anything to do with buying a home vs. renting.

Times have always changed. People adapt. The blacksmith became the mechanic. The typewriter repairman became the computer repairman and on and on.

With IRA's and 401ks workers have more options. they aren't locked into 1 employer for life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,506 posts, read 23,282,552 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Psst...look up "nonhomestead tax" and "Headlee override". Property taxes in Michigan are MUCH higher on rental property than on owner-occupied homes. While Michigan has a cap on annual property tax increases, the Headlee override allows homeowners to vote to override this cap on the nonhomestead tax they don't pay on their owner-occupied homes. Is this a great country or what? Back in 2000, the taxable value (limited by the cap) on rental property was approx 25% higher on rental prop than on equally-valued homestead property (because rental property is sold and revalued more often than owner-occ homes on average, plus Headlee overrides make the cap meaningless on rental property).

If you think owning a home is expensive, just try renting. Where I live, rents are up 8 (according to NAR) to 10 percent (according to a local real estate broker who specializes in investors and in rental property) over the same time last year.
ok so u own vacant land/buildings in MI then? I dont know their specs...Yes if u are in a metro area Im sure its prohibitively expensive, usually thats bcs there are highher salaries, etc...like NYC... Im not advocating crazy rent prices, but u do see my point?

Can you sell out? I would try moving.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top