Speaking about the broader point about housing collapse hurting homeowners of a single home, I wouldn’t call people who had 50K-100K saved that went towards downpayment rich. There certainly are many poorer people but saving this much requires earning just $1000 extra per month for 5-10 years. That’s $10/hr more. These aren’t the rich people that should be eaten.
I’m just addressing the general point of who gets hurt during a real estate market collapse. I know the article is talking about landlord taxes. Those are going to hurt the right people. In fact I was going to suggest that if you want to hurt rich people more than the working class, you want to tax them and/or pay the working class more, not tank the markets that render vast quantities of working class homeless.
This is not quite true. They don’t have a house. They rent a house at a different rate with different rules. For example should they be unable to pay their mortgage, the interest portion of which is pure rent, their house will be sold for them by their bank. This can occur if their mortgage is variable in an rising interest environment or if the economy tanks as a result of a housing crash, or because of the rising interest rates. So homeowners can and are affected by market crashes even if they don’t sell.
My example involves many people being forced to sell. That wasn’t the parent’s argument or at least I didn’t understand it this way. I think it made a point about voluntary sale. Otherwise they wouldn’t have said that vast majority of homeowners would be unaffected. I’m saying involuntary sales are a significant effect of housing market crashes. In fact involuntary sales might be required to have a market crash in the first place. If that’s true, a significant number of homeowners must be affected in order for a crash to occur.
Their example was literally about them not selling. Maybe learn to read. They explicitly called out foreclosure by a bank where the bank takes their property back from the homeowner and sells it to reclaim the mortgage amount. That is not the homeowner selling.
Lol just $1000 extra a month. I agree that no, those people aren’t ultra wealthy, but let’s not act like that much a month isn’t a completely unobtainable amount for many, many people, especially when rent is eating up 50% of people’s paychecks to start with.
If you’re a homeowner and not wanting to sell or refinance this isn’t a big deal for you. Your taxes go down. If you own a vacation home in the mountains I am just not that bummed that your investment has lost value
I’m not and probably never will be a homeowner, but I wasn’t talking about the topic of the article, just laughing at the idea that someone could say just save an extra 1k a month for a decade like that’s an easy thing to do.
I agree with you but generally but there are unlucky people that will get ducked. There are situations where you HAVE to sell. If someone loses a job and for a million possible reasons can’t get equivalent employment and can no longer afford their mortgage for example. Medical bills, spouse dies, etc.
No one is pretending that’s the case. Eating this money simply isn’t enough to make the lives of the ones that don’t have it measurably better. There’s a fuckload more extracted further up the chain. Distributing some of that money should be enough to get the ones that don’t have the extra $1000 a month have it. That’s my point. Put differently, if you think the person that can save $1K a month is wealthy, the people that save $10K per month would be happy to offer the $1K guy’s money to you, while they keep theirs, and you won’t find yourself in a significantly better position than before.
Eating the rich is the way to go, but it can only work if we eat the rich. Not the ones making $10/hr more.
I don’t know, $1000 extra income is less than $10/hr extra than someone who can’t save this money. This hypothetical person still can’t save for retirement and they definitely don’t have a house cleaner. $10/hr could be the difference between a junior and a more senior UAW worker. Or the difference between a UAW worker and a Toyota one. I can’t call any of these workers rich. These aren’t the rich people in my mind.
Speaking about the broader point about housing collapse hurting homeowners of a single home, I wouldn’t call people who had 50K-100K saved that went towards downpayment rich. There certainly are many poorer people but saving this much requires earning just $1000 extra per month for 5-10 years. That’s $10/hr more. These aren’t the rich people that should be eaten.
I’m just addressing the general point of who gets hurt during a real estate market collapse. I know the article is talking about landlord taxes. Those are going to hurt the right people. In fact I was going to suggest that if you want to hurt rich people more than the working class, you want to tax them and/or pay the working class more, not tank the markets that render vast quantities of working class homeless.
But they have a house. 50-100k or not. They got in. Some of us have that now, barely, and still can’t get in.
The only way the housing crash would affect them is if they sold. But for the vast majority of homeowners, it would not matter.
Crash. I want a house.
This is not quite true. They don’t have a house. They rent a house at a different rate with different rules. For example should they be unable to pay their mortgage, the interest portion of which is pure rent, their house will be sold for them by their bank. This can occur if their mortgage is variable in an rising interest environment or if the economy tanks as a result of a housing crash, or because of the rising interest rates. So homeowners can and are affected by market crashes even if they don’t sell.
You do realize your example involves them selling right?
My example involves many people being forced to sell. That wasn’t the parent’s argument or at least I didn’t understand it this way. I think it made a point about voluntary sale. Otherwise they wouldn’t have said that vast majority of homeowners would be unaffected. I’m saying involuntary sales are a significant effect of housing market crashes. In fact involuntary sales might be required to have a market crash in the first place. If that’s true, a significant number of homeowners must be affected in order for a crash to occur.
Their example was literally about them not selling. Maybe learn to read. They explicitly called out foreclosure by a bank where the bank takes their property back from the homeowner and sells it to reclaim the mortgage amount. That is not the homeowner selling.
Reading comprehension certainly isn’t your strong suit.
Lol just $1000 extra a month. I agree that no, those people aren’t ultra wealthy, but let’s not act like that much a month isn’t a completely unobtainable amount for many, many people, especially when rent is eating up 50% of people’s paychecks to start with.
If you’re a homeowner and not wanting to sell or refinance this isn’t a big deal for you. Your taxes go down. If you own a vacation home in the mountains I am just not that bummed that your investment has lost value
I’m not and probably never will be a homeowner, but I wasn’t talking about the topic of the article, just laughing at the idea that someone could say just save an extra 1k a month for a decade like that’s an easy thing to do.
They were more meaning, these people aren’t rich, just slightly better off than you, and that’s not who we should be fighting with.
I agree with you but generally but there are unlucky people that will get ducked. There are situations where you HAVE to sell. If someone loses a job and for a million possible reasons can’t get equivalent employment and can no longer afford their mortgage for example. Medical bills, spouse dies, etc.
No one is pretending that’s the case. Eating this money simply isn’t enough to make the lives of the ones that don’t have it measurably better. There’s a fuckload more extracted further up the chain. Distributing some of that money should be enough to get the ones that don’t have the extra $1000 a month have it. That’s my point. Put differently, if you think the person that can save $1K a month is wealthy, the people that save $10K per month would be happy to offer the $1K guy’s money to you, while they keep theirs, and you won’t find yourself in a significantly better position than before.
Eating the rich is the way to go, but it can only work if we eat the rich. Not the ones making $10/hr more.
Oh just an extra $1000 a month, is that all?
If you wouldn’t call someone with a disposable $50-100k in the US “rich,” you have no understanding of how bad it is out there.
I’m gonna need you to sit down with your house cleaner and ask them what life is really like for a lot of americans.
Depending on the city, $100k won’t even get you shit. In a major city you need a minimum of $200k to think about buying a shitty apartment.
It comes with a house cleaner though right?
If you mean mice and roaches that will clean out your pantry, sure
How little money do you think having a personal house cleaner costs?
You don’t seem to understand what “disposable” means. If it’s money saved up for a house payment, it’s by definition not disposable.
I don’t know, $1000 extra income is less than $10/hr extra than someone who can’t save this money. This hypothetical person still can’t save for retirement and they definitely don’t have a house cleaner. $10/hr could be the difference between a junior and a more senior UAW worker. Or the difference between a UAW worker and a Toyota one. I can’t call any of these workers rich. These aren’t the rich people in my mind.
Absolute moron.