- This topic has 294 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 1, 2011 at 9:17 PM #708183July 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM #709763
Anonymous
GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM #709859GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM #710458GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM #710613GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM #710972GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 PM #709768GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 PM #709864GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 PM #710463GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 PM #710618GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 PM #710977GuestEquity Release Advice Line provides whole of market advice on all aspects of Equity Release and Home Reversion schemes throughout the UK.
July 15, 2011 at 1:21 AM #709783CA renter
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?
Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.
Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.
Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.
You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.
If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?
You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.
Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.[/quote]
Sorry, was on vacation and didn’t get to respond to your comment, SDR. Now that the spammer has revived this thread…
I’m not suggesting “locking out” anyone, but we should not be giving incentives (MID, Prop 13 protection, govt-backed loans, etc.) to those who are not buying a primary residence.
This has nothing to do with “selfishness,” as we could just as easily buy up a bunch of rentals, or we could buy a primary residence in our current neighborhood without a mortgage, if we wanted to; we just don’t want to over-pay, and think that today’s prices are simply being propped up by all manner of govt/central bank intervention.
The vast majority of our wealth came from passive income, so I’m not at all talking my own book here. I’m just able to separate what’s good for me from what’s good for society. Oftentimes, the two are not the same. Offering up incentives to speculators/investors/vacation home owners is NOT good for society, IMHO. Having stable communities where local workers are able to own their own homes, and control their housing costs, and (hopefully) have a paid off home in retirement is far better for society than having a bunch of rich people making a living off of other people’s work.
July 15, 2011 at 1:21 AM #709879Participant[quote=SD Realtor]AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?
Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.
Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.
Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.
You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.
If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?
You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.
Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.[/quote]
Sorry, was on vacation and didn’t get to respond to your comment, SDR. Now that the spammer has revived this thread…
I’m not suggesting “locking out” anyone, but we should not be giving incentives (MID, Prop 13 protection, govt-backed loans, etc.) to those who are not buying a primary residence.
This has nothing to do with “selfishness,” as we could just as easily buy up a bunch of rentals, or we could buy a primary residence in our current neighborhood without a mortgage, if we wanted to; we just don’t want to over-pay, and think that today’s prices are simply being propped up by all manner of govt/central bank intervention.
The vast majority of our wealth came from passive income, so I’m not at all talking my own book here. I’m just able to separate what’s good for me from what’s good for society. Oftentimes, the two are not the same. Offering up incentives to speculators/investors/vacation home owners is NOT good for society, IMHO. Having stable communities where local workers are able to own their own homes, and control their housing costs, and (hopefully) have a paid off home in retirement is far better for society than having a bunch of rich people making a living off of other people’s work.
July 15, 2011 at 1:21 AM #710478Participant[quote=SD Realtor]AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?
Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.
Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.
Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.
You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.
If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?
You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.
Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.[/quote]
Sorry, was on vacation and didn’t get to respond to your comment, SDR. Now that the spammer has revived this thread…
I’m not suggesting “locking out” anyone, but we should not be giving incentives (MID, Prop 13 protection, govt-backed loans, etc.) to those who are not buying a primary residence.
This has nothing to do with “selfishness,” as we could just as easily buy up a bunch of rentals, or we could buy a primary residence in our current neighborhood without a mortgage, if we wanted to; we just don’t want to over-pay, and think that today’s prices are simply being propped up by all manner of govt/central bank intervention.
The vast majority of our wealth came from passive income, so I’m not at all talking my own book here. I’m just able to separate what’s good for me from what’s good for society. Oftentimes, the two are not the same. Offering up incentives to speculators/investors/vacation home owners is NOT good for society, IMHO. Having stable communities where local workers are able to own their own homes, and control their housing costs, and (hopefully) have a paid off home in retirement is far better for society than having a bunch of rich people making a living off of other people’s work.
July 15, 2011 at 1:21 AM #710633Participant[quote=SD Realtor]AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?
Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.
Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.
Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.
You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.
If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?
You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.
Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.[/quote]
Sorry, was on vacation and didn’t get to respond to your comment, SDR. Now that the spammer has revived this thread…
I’m not suggesting “locking out” anyone, but we should not be giving incentives (MID, Prop 13 protection, govt-backed loans, etc.) to those who are not buying a primary residence.
This has nothing to do with “selfishness,” as we could just as easily buy up a bunch of rentals, or we could buy a primary residence in our current neighborhood without a mortgage, if we wanted to; we just don’t want to over-pay, and think that today’s prices are simply being propped up by all manner of govt/central bank intervention.
The vast majority of our wealth came from passive income, so I’m not at all talking my own book here. I’m just able to separate what’s good for me from what’s good for society. Oftentimes, the two are not the same. Offering up incentives to speculators/investors/vacation home owners is NOT good for society, IMHO. Having stable communities where local workers are able to own their own homes, and control their housing costs, and (hopefully) have a paid off home in retirement is far better for society than having a bunch of rich people making a living off of other people’s work.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.