Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 08-04-2013, 11:20 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,692,979 times
Reputation: 22474

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2013, 11:42 AM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,469,715 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 12:27 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,455,098 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red3311 View Post
rising home prices keep the "undesirables" out of my neighborhood and im perfectly fine with that!

in 2009 I saw what used to be nice upper middle class neighborhoods turn to slums

So you're okay with upward redistribution from renters to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 12:33 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,455,098 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 12:57 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,209,760 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Of course it cannot be for long.
That means we are looking at a future real estate bust
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 01:21 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,101,577 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
Because it is an investment, so it is good for people who own a house. It isn't good for people who don't own a house.
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 01:26 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,101,577 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
The value of land changes over time.
The cost to replace the home increases, over time.
Exactly. Its why I had to insure my $200K home for $1M.. The cost to reconstruct a 6K sf home would be astronomical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 01:30 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,209,760 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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.

I don't even see how it benefits the new owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 01:39 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,101,577 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
To a flipper it is an investment and not a home.
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
I don't even see how it benefits the new owner.
Doesnt matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,621,806 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
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.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top