- This topic has 294 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM #707675June 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM #706470
CA renter
Participant[quote=masayako]When a state government is desperate enough, they will sell out your home ownership right, standard of living etc. Look at 4S ranch, those 3000 sqfts McMansion should never be built in those post stamp size 5000 sqfts lot! That’s sad.
Eventually when the foreigner investment group bid high enough(due to their increased purchasing power from currency exchange), local government would/could favor them for land and build policy over our well being. That’s my biggest worry. Foreign investors takeover remains one of my biggest concerns of our US economics decline.
I have seen it happen in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto), it could happen here. Mark my words.
[/quote]
Could not agree more, masayako.
June 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM #706567Participant[quote=masayako]When a state government is desperate enough, they will sell out your home ownership right, standard of living etc. Look at 4S ranch, those 3000 sqfts McMansion should never be built in those post stamp size 5000 sqfts lot! That’s sad.
Eventually when the foreigner investment group bid high enough(due to their increased purchasing power from currency exchange), local government would/could favor them for land and build policy over our well being. That’s my biggest worry. Foreign investors takeover remains one of my biggest concerns of our US economics decline.
I have seen it happen in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto), it could happen here. Mark my words.
[/quote]
Could not agree more, masayako.
June 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM #707166Participant[quote=masayako]When a state government is desperate enough, they will sell out your home ownership right, standard of living etc. Look at 4S ranch, those 3000 sqfts McMansion should never be built in those post stamp size 5000 sqfts lot! That’s sad.
Eventually when the foreigner investment group bid high enough(due to their increased purchasing power from currency exchange), local government would/could favor them for land and build policy over our well being. That’s my biggest worry. Foreign investors takeover remains one of my biggest concerns of our US economics decline.
I have seen it happen in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto), it could happen here. Mark my words.
[/quote]
Could not agree more, masayako.
June 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM #707317Participant[quote=masayako]When a state government is desperate enough, they will sell out your home ownership right, standard of living etc. Look at 4S ranch, those 3000 sqfts McMansion should never be built in those post stamp size 5000 sqfts lot! That’s sad.
Eventually when the foreigner investment group bid high enough(due to their increased purchasing power from currency exchange), local government would/could favor them for land and build policy over our well being. That’s my biggest worry. Foreign investors takeover remains one of my biggest concerns of our US economics decline.
I have seen it happen in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto), it could happen here. Mark my words.
[/quote]
Could not agree more, masayako.
June 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM #707680Participant[quote=masayako]When a state government is desperate enough, they will sell out your home ownership right, standard of living etc. Look at 4S ranch, those 3000 sqfts McMansion should never be built in those post stamp size 5000 sqfts lot! That’s sad.
Eventually when the foreigner investment group bid high enough(due to their increased purchasing power from currency exchange), local government would/could favor them for land and build policy over our well being. That’s my biggest worry. Foreign investors takeover remains one of my biggest concerns of our US economics decline.
I have seen it happen in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto), it could happen here. Mark my words.
[/quote]
Could not agree more, masayako.
June 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM #706475Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Why just restrict foreigners? Why not restrict rich people who are citizens? Why not restrict REITs and corporations?
What is the difference? Why not just take your taxpayer money and give it to those who have less money so that they can afford the homes? Just because you can afford a 600k home and someone else cannot does that mean you should not be able to buy it in hopes that the pricing will come down enough so someone else can?
I feel that arguments for such a society begin to place somewhat arbitrary levels of haves verses have nots and how that should benefit. Needless to say there can be a further argument that at some point making just enough effort to be a have not rather then working as hard as you can to be a have becomes a possibility.
I can understand the limitations on foreigners for holdings of US properties. I am no expert on tax law but I do believe there are tax ramifications for those who do.
Anyways more people around the world have caught up and surpassed us financially.
Get used to it.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned in another thread that people who are not buying a primary residence should NOT be able to get government-backed loans, mortgage interest deductions, Prop 13 protection (or similar tax protections that were sold as protecting people from being “taxed out of their HOMES”), etc. This applies to both foreign buyers and “rich” domestic buyers. Housing is **shelter** and should not be subject to price movements caused by speculators/investors.
If they want to buy a rental, investment property, or second/vacation home, they should have to go to the private mortgage market, pay taxes based on most recent assessments, and not be able to deduct mortgage interest.
June 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM #706572Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Why just restrict foreigners? Why not restrict rich people who are citizens? Why not restrict REITs and corporations?
What is the difference? Why not just take your taxpayer money and give it to those who have less money so that they can afford the homes? Just because you can afford a 600k home and someone else cannot does that mean you should not be able to buy it in hopes that the pricing will come down enough so someone else can?
I feel that arguments for such a society begin to place somewhat arbitrary levels of haves verses have nots and how that should benefit. Needless to say there can be a further argument that at some point making just enough effort to be a have not rather then working as hard as you can to be a have becomes a possibility.
I can understand the limitations on foreigners for holdings of US properties. I am no expert on tax law but I do believe there are tax ramifications for those who do.
Anyways more people around the world have caught up and surpassed us financially.
Get used to it.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned in another thread that people who are not buying a primary residence should NOT be able to get government-backed loans, mortgage interest deductions, Prop 13 protection (or similar tax protections that were sold as protecting people from being “taxed out of their HOMES”), etc. This applies to both foreign buyers and “rich” domestic buyers. Housing is **shelter** and should not be subject to price movements caused by speculators/investors.
If they want to buy a rental, investment property, or second/vacation home, they should have to go to the private mortgage market, pay taxes based on most recent assessments, and not be able to deduct mortgage interest.
June 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM #707171Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Why just restrict foreigners? Why not restrict rich people who are citizens? Why not restrict REITs and corporations?
What is the difference? Why not just take your taxpayer money and give it to those who have less money so that they can afford the homes? Just because you can afford a 600k home and someone else cannot does that mean you should not be able to buy it in hopes that the pricing will come down enough so someone else can?
I feel that arguments for such a society begin to place somewhat arbitrary levels of haves verses have nots and how that should benefit. Needless to say there can be a further argument that at some point making just enough effort to be a have not rather then working as hard as you can to be a have becomes a possibility.
I can understand the limitations on foreigners for holdings of US properties. I am no expert on tax law but I do believe there are tax ramifications for those who do.
Anyways more people around the world have caught up and surpassed us financially.
Get used to it.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned in another thread that people who are not buying a primary residence should NOT be able to get government-backed loans, mortgage interest deductions, Prop 13 protection (or similar tax protections that were sold as protecting people from being “taxed out of their HOMES”), etc. This applies to both foreign buyers and “rich” domestic buyers. Housing is **shelter** and should not be subject to price movements caused by speculators/investors.
If they want to buy a rental, investment property, or second/vacation home, they should have to go to the private mortgage market, pay taxes based on most recent assessments, and not be able to deduct mortgage interest.
June 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM #707322Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Why just restrict foreigners? Why not restrict rich people who are citizens? Why not restrict REITs and corporations?
What is the difference? Why not just take your taxpayer money and give it to those who have less money so that they can afford the homes? Just because you can afford a 600k home and someone else cannot does that mean you should not be able to buy it in hopes that the pricing will come down enough so someone else can?
I feel that arguments for such a society begin to place somewhat arbitrary levels of haves verses have nots and how that should benefit. Needless to say there can be a further argument that at some point making just enough effort to be a have not rather then working as hard as you can to be a have becomes a possibility.
I can understand the limitations on foreigners for holdings of US properties. I am no expert on tax law but I do believe there are tax ramifications for those who do.
Anyways more people around the world have caught up and surpassed us financially.
Get used to it.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned in another thread that people who are not buying a primary residence should NOT be able to get government-backed loans, mortgage interest deductions, Prop 13 protection (or similar tax protections that were sold as protecting people from being “taxed out of their HOMES”), etc. This applies to both foreign buyers and “rich” domestic buyers. Housing is **shelter** and should not be subject to price movements caused by speculators/investors.
If they want to buy a rental, investment property, or second/vacation home, they should have to go to the private mortgage market, pay taxes based on most recent assessments, and not be able to deduct mortgage interest.
June 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM #707685Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Why just restrict foreigners? Why not restrict rich people who are citizens? Why not restrict REITs and corporations?
What is the difference? Why not just take your taxpayer money and give it to those who have less money so that they can afford the homes? Just because you can afford a 600k home and someone else cannot does that mean you should not be able to buy it in hopes that the pricing will come down enough so someone else can?
I feel that arguments for such a society begin to place somewhat arbitrary levels of haves verses have nots and how that should benefit. Needless to say there can be a further argument that at some point making just enough effort to be a have not rather then working as hard as you can to be a have becomes a possibility.
I can understand the limitations on foreigners for holdings of US properties. I am no expert on tax law but I do believe there are tax ramifications for those who do.
Anyways more people around the world have caught up and surpassed us financially.
Get used to it.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned in another thread that people who are not buying a primary residence should NOT be able to get government-backed loans, mortgage interest deductions, Prop 13 protection (or similar tax protections that were sold as protecting people from being “taxed out of their HOMES”), etc. This applies to both foreign buyers and “rich” domestic buyers. Housing is **shelter** and should not be subject to price movements caused by speculators/investors.
If they want to buy a rental, investment property, or second/vacation home, they should have to go to the private mortgage market, pay taxes based on most recent assessments, and not be able to deduct mortgage interest.
June 29, 2011 at 1:03 AM #706515Participant[quote=EconProf]You underestimate the dynamic and self-correcting nature of our market system, and also ignore some beneficial effects of such an event.
First, SDSU students are not stupid–they will go to other neighborhoods, etc., saddling the new foreign owners with huge vacancies. Second, those new areas receiving the influx of students, will boost their prices, spurring the building of more rentals, subdividing houses, etc. In addition, the happy sellers of all the SDSU-near housing and apts must have been paid a pretty penny to sell out–they will now spend, save, and invest, leading to more beneficial effects.
I think it was at the height of the Japanese boom in the 1980s when all the US-bashers thought we would be overwhelmed by the Japanese buyers (before their 2 decades of stagnation), that Japanese investors bought the famous Pebble Beach, for about $1 billion I believe. They way overpaid for it, and sold for a lot less years later. Vancouver may some day experience the same.
We need to keep our country open for business, preserve property rights and the rule of law, and welcome foreign investors while we hope they keep on welcoming us.[/quote]The problem with the “self-correcting nature of our market system” is the time lag between when the distortions begin and when the market corrects. It can take YEARS, and in that time, irreversible damage can be done.
For a clear example of this, look at our housing market. IMHO, we reached the top of the “normal” RE cycle in about 2001; then the credit bubble took over from there. Trillions of dollars have been added to our debt because of the time lag of at least 6-7 years between the beginning of the credit/housing bubble, and the collapse. Unfortunately, the PTB thinks the “collapse” is the problem, so they have spent trillions more trying to keep the market from “self-correcting.”
Though the “efficient market” hypothesis sounds nice on paper, our market system really creates tremendous boom/bust cycles during these time lags, which can be so damaging that people (and countries) will NEVER be able to recover in their lifetimes.
June 29, 2011 at 1:03 AM #706613Participant[quote=EconProf]You underestimate the dynamic and self-correcting nature of our market system, and also ignore some beneficial effects of such an event.
First, SDSU students are not stupid–they will go to other neighborhoods, etc., saddling the new foreign owners with huge vacancies. Second, those new areas receiving the influx of students, will boost their prices, spurring the building of more rentals, subdividing houses, etc. In addition, the happy sellers of all the SDSU-near housing and apts must have been paid a pretty penny to sell out–they will now spend, save, and invest, leading to more beneficial effects.
I think it was at the height of the Japanese boom in the 1980s when all the US-bashers thought we would be overwhelmed by the Japanese buyers (before their 2 decades of stagnation), that Japanese investors bought the famous Pebble Beach, for about $1 billion I believe. They way overpaid for it, and sold for a lot less years later. Vancouver may some day experience the same.
We need to keep our country open for business, preserve property rights and the rule of law, and welcome foreign investors while we hope they keep on welcoming us.[/quote]The problem with the “self-correcting nature of our market system” is the time lag between when the distortions begin and when the market corrects. It can take YEARS, and in that time, irreversible damage can be done.
For a clear example of this, look at our housing market. IMHO, we reached the top of the “normal” RE cycle in about 2001; then the credit bubble took over from there. Trillions of dollars have been added to our debt because of the time lag of at least 6-7 years between the beginning of the credit/housing bubble, and the collapse. Unfortunately, the PTB thinks the “collapse” is the problem, so they have spent trillions more trying to keep the market from “self-correcting.”
Though the “efficient market” hypothesis sounds nice on paper, our market system really creates tremendous boom/bust cycles during these time lags, which can be so damaging that people (and countries) will NEVER be able to recover in their lifetimes.
June 29, 2011 at 1:03 AM #707213Participant[quote=EconProf]You underestimate the dynamic and self-correcting nature of our market system, and also ignore some beneficial effects of such an event.
First, SDSU students are not stupid–they will go to other neighborhoods, etc., saddling the new foreign owners with huge vacancies. Second, those new areas receiving the influx of students, will boost their prices, spurring the building of more rentals, subdividing houses, etc. In addition, the happy sellers of all the SDSU-near housing and apts must have been paid a pretty penny to sell out–they will now spend, save, and invest, leading to more beneficial effects.
I think it was at the height of the Japanese boom in the 1980s when all the US-bashers thought we would be overwhelmed by the Japanese buyers (before their 2 decades of stagnation), that Japanese investors bought the famous Pebble Beach, for about $1 billion I believe. They way overpaid for it, and sold for a lot less years later. Vancouver may some day experience the same.
We need to keep our country open for business, preserve property rights and the rule of law, and welcome foreign investors while we hope they keep on welcoming us.[/quote]The problem with the “self-correcting nature of our market system” is the time lag between when the distortions begin and when the market corrects. It can take YEARS, and in that time, irreversible damage can be done.
For a clear example of this, look at our housing market. IMHO, we reached the top of the “normal” RE cycle in about 2001; then the credit bubble took over from there. Trillions of dollars have been added to our debt because of the time lag of at least 6-7 years between the beginning of the credit/housing bubble, and the collapse. Unfortunately, the PTB thinks the “collapse” is the problem, so they have spent trillions more trying to keep the market from “self-correcting.”
Though the “efficient market” hypothesis sounds nice on paper, our market system really creates tremendous boom/bust cycles during these time lags, which can be so damaging that people (and countries) will NEVER be able to recover in their lifetimes.
June 29, 2011 at 1:03 AM #707362Participant[quote=EconProf]You underestimate the dynamic and self-correcting nature of our market system, and also ignore some beneficial effects of such an event.
First, SDSU students are not stupid–they will go to other neighborhoods, etc., saddling the new foreign owners with huge vacancies. Second, those new areas receiving the influx of students, will boost their prices, spurring the building of more rentals, subdividing houses, etc. In addition, the happy sellers of all the SDSU-near housing and apts must have been paid a pretty penny to sell out–they will now spend, save, and invest, leading to more beneficial effects.
I think it was at the height of the Japanese boom in the 1980s when all the US-bashers thought we would be overwhelmed by the Japanese buyers (before their 2 decades of stagnation), that Japanese investors bought the famous Pebble Beach, for about $1 billion I believe. They way overpaid for it, and sold for a lot less years later. Vancouver may some day experience the same.
We need to keep our country open for business, preserve property rights and the rule of law, and welcome foreign investors while we hope they keep on welcoming us.[/quote]The problem with the “self-correcting nature of our market system” is the time lag between when the distortions begin and when the market corrects. It can take YEARS, and in that time, irreversible damage can be done.
For a clear example of this, look at our housing market. IMHO, we reached the top of the “normal” RE cycle in about 2001; then the credit bubble took over from there. Trillions of dollars have been added to our debt because of the time lag of at least 6-7 years between the beginning of the credit/housing bubble, and the collapse. Unfortunately, the PTB thinks the “collapse” is the problem, so they have spent trillions more trying to keep the market from “self-correcting.”
Though the “efficient market” hypothesis sounds nice on paper, our market system really creates tremendous boom/bust cycles during these time lags, which can be so damaging that people (and countries) will NEVER be able to recover in their lifetimes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.