• Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Housing appreciation IS the problem, without housing appreciation, housing wouldn’t have become unaffordable in the first place and we wouldn’t be complaining about the current cost of living issues. In order for us to have affordable housing, property cannot appreciate faster than wages. Otherwise over time, it will ALWAYS become unaffordable.

    I don’t think you’re wrong here, but I need to let this sink in after a nap.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It’s a very fundamental concept that almost everyone is missing.

      If houses increase faster than wages, the price of them relative to incomes will slowly go up forever making them less and less affordable.

      If housing prices go up less than wages (or even go down) then the people owning the houses are losing money each month, but the housing costs will stabilize at a price level that is balanced by how much money people are willing to lose each month just to have a home.

      The second option isn’t as bad as most people think, it’s how cars work right now. You’re willing to buy a car and spend money each month because it benefits your life, not because it gives you money back.

      How do we achieve prices going up less than wages? There are about a dozen different possible ways for the government to do it. Options include the Government owning all land and just renting/leasing it to people instead of selling it, putting a 100% capital gains tax on the land (not the buildings), or my personal favorite which is a yearly land value tax (not a property or building tax) and using that revenue to pay for a basic income leaving a net zero tax change for a person who uses an appropriate amount of land for a given area.