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.
There are many physical reasons why a house or home should become more valuable. Most importantly spending as a result of that house/home and household. Remove a house from a community and you remove a serious amount of local spending, income and taxes.
It depends on who is living in that house. If they are taxpayers and working for a living, then yes, losing them and that house would be a problem, if they are welfare recipients and just a drain on society, then losing them isn't so bad. Yes, the slumlords like to get in on all that free government money though.
Some of that is a bit like the chicken and the egg and what came first. Did the local spending, income, and taxes go away and then caused the house to become empty and removed?
It depends on who is living in that house. If they are taxpayers and working for a living, then yes, losing them and that house would be a problem, if they are welfare recipients and just a drain on society, then losing them isn't so bad. Yes, the slumlords like to get in on all that free government money though.
Some of that is a bit like the chicken and the egg and what came first. Did the local spending, income, and taxes go away and then caused the house to become empty and removed?
The local community does not care so much where the money comes from, earned or welfare. Even a welfare supported house is better than none or unoccupied. Assuming the necessary bills, rent, mortgage and taxes are paid, and the occupants still spend into the local economy creating demands for goods, services and jobs.
Demand controls market price. In areas where there are more buyers than there are available properties or land on which to build, home prices go up. Can't get more physical than that....
In a free market, it would be possible to build more houses. There is plenty of land to build on, the limiting constraint is government, not land.
Homes are not investments, they actually are liabilities.
Yes, without one you would have the liability of rent, but exchanging one liability for another one, doesnt make it an investment..
To a flipper it is an investment and not a home.
A significant percentage of buyers in some markets are investors/flippers
I don't see how a guy buying a home for $80,000 in January and selling it for $130,000 a year later is a benefit to anyone, except him and the real estate agents involved.
But to a flipper, they arent homes, they are rental properties, designed to make money. Homes arent designed to make money to the occupant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
A significant percentage of buyers in some markets are investors/flippers
Thats true, but this thread is discussing homes, and once again, if you're a flipper, you arent buying real estate for a home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
I don't see how a guy buying a home for $80,000 in January and selling it for $130,000 a year later is a benefit to anyone, except him and the real estate agents involved.
So you dont see any benefit to anyoen else, so what? I dont see a benefit to people buying cars except to the sales agent, and the buyer who doesnt need to walk anymore, but that doesnt mean benefits dont exist.
paying double real estate taxes is not my idea of homeowners benefitting, but then again I'm not a nanny stater.
Why would you pay double? Anyone who owns a house knows the tax won't double even if the price did double, which is not what we are seeing anyway.
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.