Residential Rental Contracts Are Bad For The Economy

James it really isn't his fault, we started discussing it..
he wanted to debate..If i have a vote in this, i would say move it..but keep the original OP here..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most of the proposed argument here is based on the idea that a renter will pay FIVE times as much as an owner over the course of 50 years.

I dont think this is anywhere near realistic...when you factor in accumulated maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest and property tax costs.

What would be beneficial is having local governments invest in good quality three-story rental units.

I would love to have my credit union do the same for its depositors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My argument is in draft. So five years fits some evidence, but that could change when more evidence is considered. I need more time for that particular claim.

At this time, I've been threatened with a ban because James R. publicly stated I sound racist. Although I have made no statement derogatory to any race. They are drawing this conclusion from a statement that I made that claims no scientific evidence exists proving an event occurred. That's supposed to be racist I guess here. Because of this strange threat, I will concentrate on the Auschwitz Debate thread instead. I've been threaten if I don't back up my argument, I will banned. Later, I may have time for this. topic I'd love to talk about it.

If I'm banned, I wouldn't care although.. I am better than people who would create that situation. Shit happens. Pogroms happen. Australia happened. Sometimes for a good reason, sometimes without reason. We'll see the true colors here.

 

SUMMARY: Probably no other single decision by the US government has helped destroy the US economy as much as the idea that Big Brother should help all be homeowners instead of many be renters.

Seldom does "big brother" guiding economic decision, instead of letting the market place decide with a "level playing field" result in net benefit to the public. Perhaps the strongest example of this is the belief by both political parties that home ownership, instead of renting is good for society. Recent history (the housing bubble and collapse) shows how great an economic disaster big brother deciding what is best can make.

"... Another reason the mortgage deduction counts a subsidy: other taxpayers pay for it, at least indirectly. According to official estimates, the deduction reduces federal revenue by about $100 billion per year. Total revenue from individual income taxes is just above $1 trillion. So, if Congress abolished this deduction, and instead lowered all tax rates across the board, we could cut everyone's taxes by nearly 10 percent. ...

Even if you're one of those homeowners getting the deduction, there's a chance you're still losing out on net. It's important to remember that subsidizing something doesn't just benefit the people buying it. In fact, it often benefits the sellers more. ...

Decreasing the monthly cost of owning a home also drives up the price of buying a home. After all, you're not the only one with access to the mortgage-interest deduction. The deduction boosts demand, thus boosting price. As a result of the home mortgage deduction, homebuyers end up paying more for their home.

So while they get to deduct their interest payments, those payments are much higher due to the price effects of the deduction. Take away the excess demand generated by the deduction, and home prices would fall. True, mortgage interest would no longer be deductible, but the payments would be much lower. Most homebuyers would be better off without the deduction.

The real beneficiary of the deduction is the seller, who sells his house at an inflated price. Of course if he uses the proceeds to trade up to an even larger house, he losses out as well. The only winners are those who sell and rent, trade down to less expensive houses - or professional homebuilders, who sell houses for a living.

Realtors also profit. Greater demand for buying a home means more homes bought, meaning more commissions. Also, higher demand means higher home prices, meaning higher commissions. Lenders also profit from the home mortgage interest deduction, which encourages people to not only to buy, and thus take out mortgages, but to take out bigger* mortgages than they otherwise would. ..."

This quote from: Peter D. Schiff´s testimony to House Financial Services Committee on June 7, 2012

Billy T comment:While Schiff makes good points such as that the home mortgage makes everyone pay about 10% more in taxes than if it did not exist and very significantly increase house prices (and total mortgage payments, banker´s profits, home insurance cost, local real estate taxes, etc.) he failed to note that the no money down, liar loans, etc. directly led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the government (read that as taxpayers) take over of Fanny May and Freddy Mac, etc. with the toxic trash yet to be cleared out.

Unfortunately, the US has drifted into a state where profits are private (and justify multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs and million dollar bonuses for dozen of the higher corporate officers) and loses are public. - I.e. the tax payer will eat the losses.

* Consider a childless lady lawyer married to a high paid doctor: They are nearly forced to buy a suburban mansion with five bedrooms using a multi-million dollar mortgage to get some tax shelter for their large joint income. The home mortgage deduction is a gross distortion of the economy that in net makes great damage to the US economy even if it had not made the housing bubble and collapse!

 

Have the photographs been faked all these years?