Let’s play this out. Inheritance is illegal and you’re hyping up a self-regulating market so I’m assuming you think their assets should be sold mandatorily rather than seized by the state for redistribution (unclear what happens with liquid assets in this situation but you didn’t give much to work on). So instead of passing huge fortunes to their kids their assets are instead acquired by whoever is willing invest the most capital. They get an extra house that they can then rent out to collect passive income from someone “starting from scratch”, someone who cannot possibly out-gain the person who owns property. Eventually the landlord (more of a land baron at this point) will die and their various holdings will be scooped up by smaller landlords (but never by young families) thus perpetuating a new fun cycle of oligarchs in a system that rewards the fastest people to abandon all morals in favor of personal gain, and there’s no incentive for selflessness because you can’t leave anything behind anyway. Pure personal gain and consumption.
You assume that there is wealth and that it should be regulated
It’s more of a cultural thing, where people actually use their wealth while they can and when they can’t, they pass it over to a charity of their choosing.
If there’s no wealth then there’s no “housing market”, going full classless-stateless-moneyless socialism is such a huge departure from the current state of things it doesn’t make sense to even have this conversation about it. (And giving to charity is all well and good but I generally consider charity to be addressing a failure of society and as long as we’re in fantasy land there should be no need for charitable giving)
Also: weaseling out of addressing any of the holes in your position by changing the subject instead of explaining any detail about your stance is weak.
Prices adjust to what people can afford. When you have people who can pay whatever you are asking, prices go up.
Same goes with loans. In fact, you some times you can’t even get a loan for an affordable house if it is in a location where the bank feels is hard to sell
What were you born in 2009? Prices have been outrageously detached from reasonable interpretations of “affordability” for ages and banks are more than happy to collect interest for the rest of your life.
I think you’re reading into this, what you want to read and not what I’m saying
My point was that if we all started from scratch, and fortunes weren’t passed over from generations to generations, the social and economic gap would be smaller
Ehhhhh only to what it can be reliably sold for, not to what most people can afford. If 10% of people are multimillionaires (and they are in the US) but 40% of people don’t even have $500 to their name (also is the case in the US) you can absolutely continue to see a housing market that is in part just passing wealth around that top 15%, especially if they can turn around and rent the investment properties to the bottom 50% to make even more money
Now, things do get really interesting when the wealthy aren’t interested in the property in a given area, and the market flips from ponzi scheme to actually being houses that people can realistically afford and do live in. Of course such places also tend to be on the knife edge of also being mortgage deserts because they tend to be very small towns with dwindling populations
It does actually.
If people didn’t pass over huge fortunes to their kids, and everyone had to start from scratch, then the housing market would be a lot more equal
Let’s play this out. Inheritance is illegal and you’re hyping up a self-regulating market so I’m assuming you think their assets should be sold mandatorily rather than seized by the state for redistribution (unclear what happens with liquid assets in this situation but you didn’t give much to work on). So instead of passing huge fortunes to their kids their assets are instead acquired by whoever is willing invest the most capital. They get an extra house that they can then rent out to collect passive income from someone “starting from scratch”, someone who cannot possibly out-gain the person who owns property. Eventually the landlord (more of a land baron at this point) will die and their various holdings will be scooped up by smaller landlords (but never by young families) thus perpetuating a new fun cycle of oligarchs in a system that rewards the fastest people to abandon all morals in favor of personal gain, and there’s no incentive for selflessness because you can’t leave anything behind anyway. Pure personal gain and consumption.
Not necessarily
You assume that there is wealth and that it should be regulated
It’s more of a cultural thing, where people actually use their wealth while they can and when they can’t, they pass it over to a charity of their choosing.
This at least is very common here
https://www.dyrenesbeskyttelse.dk/testamente
If there’s no wealth then there’s no “housing market”, going full classless-stateless-moneyless socialism is such a huge departure from the current state of things it doesn’t make sense to even have this conversation about it. (And giving to charity is all well and good but I generally consider charity to be addressing a failure of society and as long as we’re in fantasy land there should be no need for charitable giving)
Also: weaseling out of addressing any of the holes in your position by changing the subject instead of explaining any detail about your stance is weak.
Sorry. I meant accumulated wealth. English is my second language
My point is not political. It’s more social. Spend your money while you’re living instead of hoarding it
Politics and society are not and cannot be separated.
Ever heard of homeloans?
You would only end up with more people in debt, not cheaper houses.
Prices adjust to what people can afford. When you have people who can pay whatever you are asking, prices go up.
Same goes with loans. In fact, you some times you can’t even get a loan for an affordable house if it is in a location where the bank feels is hard to sell
What were you born in 2009? Prices have been outrageously detached from reasonable interpretations of “affordability” for ages and banks are more than happy to collect interest for the rest of your life.
This is because some people still can afford to pay outrageous prices or willing (forced) to go into unreasonable debt.
Yeah, those damn people who refuse to be homeless are ruining it for everyone
I think you’re reading into this, what you want to read and not what I’m saying
My point was that if we all started from scratch, and fortunes weren’t passed over from generations to generations, the social and economic gap would be smaller
Prices would adjust to what people could pay
Ehhhhh only to what it can be reliably sold for, not to what most people can afford. If 10% of people are multimillionaires (and they are in the US) but 40% of people don’t even have $500 to their name (also is the case in the US) you can absolutely continue to see a housing market that is in part just passing wealth around that top 15%, especially if they can turn around and rent the investment properties to the bottom 50% to make even more money
Now, things do get really interesting when the wealthy aren’t interested in the property in a given area, and the market flips from ponzi scheme to actually being houses that people can realistically afford and do live in. Of course such places also tend to be on the knife edge of also being mortgage deserts because they tend to be very small towns with dwindling populations
deleted by creator