Debate and Opinion: Place Limit on number of housing property owned

There always seems te be a housing crises, not enough being built and an always seemingly increase in house prices.

One of the main causes are people who own multiple properties. Weather its a boomer putting their savings into a property, or some rich folk just continually expanding their collection.

This results in people getting stuck renting. Lining the pockets of the rich and paying off someone else's mortgage.

What would happen if you limit ownership of a housing property. So a single person/couple can own up to a maximum of 1 (2 of even 3) houses.

What are your thoughts and opinions on the idea? And what impact do think it will have on the economy and political. And how many people would benifit from it and how many lose out from it?

Land is precious. Don't waste land.

Tbh, where I live - I get the impression that farmers are using pretty much every space there is or sooner or later will be, I sometimes wonder where or how do people find unused land to build houses on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Land is precious. Don't waste land.

Tbh, where I live - I get the impression that farmers are using pretty much every space there is or sooner or later will be, I sometimes wonder where or how do people find unused land to build houses on.

---

Vertical farming, Genetic Modifications and veganism (including cultured meat) are all solutions for farm space, so that's not an issue here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Vertical farming, Genetic Modifications and veganism (including cultured meat) are all solutions for farm space, so that's not an issue here.

---

How do genetic modifications and veganism help?

Also, vertical farming is way too expensive and complicated for such large quantities.
Besides, how'd vertical farming even work for regular stuff like wheat, rice, potato, corn? We aren't talking about your garden or home where you can make aquaponics or hydroponics systems - we're talking about quantities large enough to feed a country + export. How would your regular joe create hectares of these vertical farming systems?
Can you show examples of what you mean?

Genetic modifications allow for maximal food production from a single plant. Implicit modification has already been done for thousands of years through selection of what seeds to grow based on yield/color/flavor etc.

Explicit modification has started in the past few decades and likely will continue to take off. There is nothing inherently wrong with modification, despite the negative connotation it tends to have nowadays.

Problems arise with monocultures: when some high (80-90%) of all of a particular crop is the same species we are putting our eggs in one basket. All it takes is one fast spreading plant malady be it a pest or a disease that could wipe out large amounts of production. Additionally there is the Ian Malcolm argument that who knows what effects may be possible with the 'disruption' of nature in this way.

Genetic mods: maximum nutrients, minimum care, speedy growth, maximum fruiting, higher disease/environment hazard.

Veganism simply for every farm of livestock costs us about 10 farms of plant farms.
Because about 90% of energy/nutrition is lost between each chain of the food chain. It would take about 9 farm sizes of food for livestock to feed 1 farm of livestock.

Vertical farming, let me find links.
But basically enclosed environments=stable environments=more food

With vertical farming I mean just look into that yourself. It would be wrong for me to feed you articles I've picked myself as it's biased. It won't take you long to discover why it's the future. The monoculture scenario is easily solved by science and is just another scare tactic.

With the exception of the ultra rich almost everyone who owns multiple houses rents them or is flipping them. In America if your hose is homesteaded (your primary home) you get huge tax breaks and limits to how much the city can hike your taxes each year but this is not afforded to rentals. This makes rental property's a huge source of city taxation.

Im not sure if a limit on home ownership is really the best move. The bigger problem is there are too many damn people and our population is growing too much. At some point we will outgrow our ability to sustain ourselves and things will get bad.

Yeh my main gripe was at the amount of renter Vs owners and not the overpopulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Yeh my main gripe was at the amount of renter Vs owners and not the overpopulation.

---

Your point seems more like an issue of fuck richer people who have more money than they need. I think it would make sense to increase taxes for those of increasing richness but the obvious problem with that is they will just move their wealth and companies to other countries that don’t restrict them. Not sure there will be a solution till we eventually move to a more global economy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

Your point seems more like an issue of fuck richer people who have more money than they need. I think it would make sense to increase taxes for those of increasing richness but the obvious problem with that is they will just move their wealth and companies to other countries that don’t restrict them. Not sure there will be a solution till we eventually move to a more global economy

---

No, its with the cost of buying into the housing market and getting trapped in the rent market.
And the price of new builds are insane (Twice the price for half the size and poorer quality build material)

I assume that by "property owners", you mean owners of actual houses and not of apartment towers and the like, because preventing people from owning many of these would hurt some building groups way too much and would not create actual space for more people. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I doubt multi-ownership of houses has a major impact, because not so many people own multiple houses. That being said, it looks like an absolutely unnecessary negative impact to me with no real benefits, so I don't see a reason not to limit ownership to 2 houses. Exceptions could of course be made, like with every law. For example, if someone wants to buy his family's house but has already reached the ownership limit, it could be reasonable to let him buy that house. What doesn't make sense is "house collections". As I said, though, it probably isn't common enough to be a major issue. I don't have any statistics, though.

I think capping how many properties people can own in certain very cramped places like London would make sense. I think the housing market is a little over-glorified in terms of its stability and its returns. Middle class boomers seem stubbornly convinced it's the best way to invest money. But uninformed as I am I'm still sure there's several stocks they could put that money into which are safer and give better returns. I think I calculated one time with some properties in London and the return was only like ~2% of the actual house's price per year iirc. That's kind of awful for a market that's a self aware bubble, no? ^^

THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES PER PERSON SHALL BE CAPPED TO ONE ALL WHO VIOLATE IT ARE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE AND ARE TO BE SOLD TO MONGOLIAN SLAVERS. ALL SHALL LEARN THEIR LESSON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES PER PERSON SHALL BE CAPPED TO ONE ALL WHO VIOLATE IT ARE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE AND ARE TO BE SOLD TO MONGOLIAN SLAVERS. ALL SHALL LEARN THEIR LESSON

---

Can you please not try to derail serious discussion threads? Thanks.

So there isnt really any negatives to be seen?

Aslong as you make sure it dosn't stop things like flipping or family stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

So there isnt really any negatives to be seen?

Aslong as you make sure it dosn't stop things like flipping or family stuff

---

Ask that to those who're into real estate business what they think. ;)

Btw, does "housing" also include apartments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Ask that to those who're into real estate business what they think. ;)

Btw, does "housing" also include apartments?

---

A whole apartment building fine,
Multi apartments across different buildings meh not so cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voss

Can you please not try to derail serious discussion threads? Thanks.

---

What do you mean this is as serious as it gets

I just don't see the idea as functional. Say you got that law passed, theres a thousand 'vehicles' people use to move around wealth. They could place the property in a Trust or they could establish an incorporated and transfer the property into it. Even if you nailed those down you would basically have to eliminate foreign home ownership or there is another thousand ways to play with wealth that your country has no ability to control.

All that aside, say you could magically restrict property ownership. How is that going to change the issue of renting? Those who could not afford to own a house before will still be unable to do so.

I do get where you are coming from but I just don't see how such a thing could be implemented or what it would do to change the underlying systemic problem you want to address.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

So there isnt really any negatives to be seen?

Aslong as you make sure it dosn't stop things like flipping or family stuff

---

As far as I know, yes. It may be hard to make sure it doesn't harm flipping, though. Would people be given a lilmited amount of time during which they could own multiple houses, for example? It becomes complicated. It's probably possible, though; it would simply need adjustments over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES PER PERSON SHALL BE CAPPED TO ONE ALL WHO VIOLATE IT ARE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE AND ARE TO BE SOLD TO MONGOLIAN SLAVERS. ALL SHALL LEARN THEIR LESSON

---

That's the CK2 Lunatic version of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

I just don't see the idea as functional. Say you got that law passed, theres a thousand 'vehicles' people use to move around wealth. They could place the property in a Trust or they could establish an incorporated and transfer the property into it. Even if you nailed those down you would basically have to eliminate foreign home ownership or there is another thousand ways to play with wealth that your country has no ability to control.

All that aside, say you could magically restrict property ownership. How is that going to change the issue of renting? Those who could not afford to own a house before will still be unable to do so.

I do get where you are coming from but I just don't see how such a thing could be implemented or what it would do to change the underlying systemic problem you want to address.

---

You can make it illegal to control multiple houses, though. Or perhaps even better, you can give financial penalties to those who own multiple houses, directly or indirectly, and who do not respond to some criteria (family house, etc.) You're right that it's not as easy as saying "Booo screw the rich and moar houses for da poor!!!!", but very few laws are that easy to implement. It's very probably possible to do it in an acceptable manner. It's just not extremely simple.

As for the usefulness, it's quite simple: if the demand remains stable and the offer grows (more houses to buy because people who don't need them, aka owners of multiple houses, can't have many of them anymore), prices lower and houses become more affordable. It's not magic, but it's nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

That's the CK2 Lunatic version of the law.

---

Call it the Mongolian Slaver Act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

As far as I know, yes. It may be hard to make sure it doesn't harm flipping, though. Would people be given a lilmited amount of time during which they could own multiple houses, for example? It becomes complicated. It's probably possible, though; it would simply need adjustments over time.

That's the CK2 Lunatic version of the law.


You can make it illegal to control multiple houses, though. Or perhaps even better, you can give financial penalties to those who own multiple houses, directly or indirectly, and who do not respond to some criteria (family house, etc.) You're right that it's not as easy as saying "Booo screw the rich and moar houses for da poor!!!!", but very few laws are that easy to implement. It's very probably possible to do it in an acceptable manner. It's just not extremely simple.

As for the usefulness, it's quite simple: if the demand remains stable and the offer grows (more houses to buy because people who don't need them, aka owners of multiple houses, can't have many of them anymore), prices lower and houses become more affordable. It's not magic, but it's nice.

---

I'm not sure if you got what I meant by financial vehicles. No mater how hard the government trys they are pretty much unable to tax rich peoples assets because they use financial vehicles to move wealth around. People also create an additional citizenship in another country to become a 2nd person on paper. Then theres the issue that laws are generally only enforceable past their established date so prior holdings would likely not be effected. I don't want to be a pessimist but in a day when governments are unable to even tax the rich because they move their wealth around I just do not see a practical way to control asset ownership.

Theres also the ethical aspect of forcing market behavior that in itself is a substantial restriction on freedom that would likely only end up impacting the average 'citizen' while the wealthy would find loopholes to do what they have always done.

I think a larger part of this issues is not that there is a shortage of houses, its that there is areas with a high demand for houses. People want a house but they also want to live in a specific area and they want to pay a specific price. They can only have 2 of those 3 things. The house I just bought I moved from Austin Texas to a shithole of a town called 'Killeen' because I wanted a house and I wanted the pricepoint. It is not in a city I want to live in at all but I did a stupid amount of research to project the market value and now 8 or 9 months sense I bought the place all the real-estate agents are figuring out what I figured out a year ago and I have already been getting offers all over the place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

I'm not sure if you got what I meant by financial vehicles. No mater how hard the government trys they are pretty much unable to tax rich peoples assets because they use financial vehicles to move wealth around. People also create an additional citizenship in another country to become a 2nd person on paper. Then theres the issue that laws are generally only enforceable past their established date so prior holdings would likely not be effected. I don't want to be a pessimist but in a day when governments are unable to even tax the rich because they move their wealth around I just do not see a practical way to control asset ownership.

---

Fair. Doesn't mean we can't try, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

Theres also the ethical aspect of forcing market behavior that in itself is a substantial restriction on freedom that would likely only end up impacting the average 'citizen' while the wealthy would find loopholes to do what they have always done.

---

The average citizen does not own more than two houses. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

I think a larger part of this issues is not that there is a shortage of houses, its that there is areas with a high demand for houses. People want a house but they also want to live in a specific area and they want to pay a specific price. They can only have 2 of those 3 things. The house I just bought I moved from Austin Texas to a shithole of a town called 'Killeen' because I wanted a house and I wanted the pricepoint. It is not in a city I want to live in at all but I did a stupid amount of research to project the market value and now 8 or 9 months sense I bought the place all the real-estate agents are figuring out what I figured out a year ago and I have already been getting offers all over the place.

---

That is very likely correct. As I said, I don't think that ownership of multiple houses is a big issue, but rather that it's a needlessly present issue.

How many people even own that many houses? Aside from that, I’m pretty sure the kind of house bought by those who have lots of houses isn’t the kind of house a poor person would even be able to afford in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

How many people even own that many houses? Aside from that, I’m pretty sure the kind of house bought by those who have lots of houses isn’t the kind of house a poor person would even be able to afford in the first place!

---

Apart from those that rent it to the poor people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

How many people even own that many houses? Aside from that, I’m pretty sure the kind of house bought by those who have lots of houses isn’t the kind of house a poor person would even be able to afford in the first place!

---

About 17% of homeowners in the UK, only including homes that people actually live in (i.e. not rentals). Source: https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...research-finds

FYI, buying a home is often cheaper than renting month-over-month. What hinders poor people from buying a home is initial investment (such as down payment, notary services, etc.) and financial stability that lets them secure a mortgage. I bought a place that was substantially better than what I was renting before and my non-recoverable cost is about half of what it used to be.

I think the bigger issue with the housing market is supply-side. I used to live in the Bay Area which is one of the most expensive places in the world to live, rent is insane there. Despite the huge amount of people wanting to live there, the entire peninsula and south bay was zoned primarily for low-density residential housing. There were barely any high-rises or any sort of high-density living space. A large part of it, of course, was due to influence from the insanely wealthy people that live there. I think zoning more areas for high-density housing in high-demand areas would be a much better solution than restricting the number of homes one can own, which is a bandaid solution to the problem.

Something I am curious about. Prior to COVID a 2x4 stud was about $2.35 but now with supply chains going insane its about $9.70

One thing some people are betting on is a gradual overall house price increase with expected material costs to settle between 20-50% higher than they were pre-covid. Is this issue just a thing around America or are you guys seeing that around the world?

We had stamp duty removed/lowered to try and combat the rising house prices.

The idea was that cut the stamp duty so you can lower the house price.

What actually happened was that the prices never dropped and people just pocketed the extra cash from the stamp duty cost cut.

With materials we are seeing a lot of new builds being built. They are horrid though.

They are even smaller than our terraced housesing using psychology methods to make rooms look bigger than they really are. Even the ceiling are extremely low (under 6ft but I still have to duck under every ceiling light) I understand it's better due to being cheaper to heat and insulate but they are far too low.

They are using cheap materials and speedy building. I've been seeing these new builds fall apart and turn up with many concurring problems after only a few years of being built.
Sure the older houses have their problems, but the materials they use where sturdy and high quality.

And yet. These new builds are two or three times the price of any used buildings.

Yet again it feels like people stopped building houses to live in, and now we just have businesses building houses to make profit.