I’m calling bullshit on investment properties.
I’ve really had enough of this business, especially here in Australia, in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, where so many people who want to buy a home, to get their foot in the door of the housing market, as they say, can’t, because it’s too expensive. Your average working guy or gal or couple even, who has a decent income and a bunch of savings often cannot buy a place to live in these cities because there is too much demand and not enough supply. And surely part of the reason for this is that there’s all those rich people who own multiple properties.
And I just think that is bullshit. I think it should be illegal. Yes that’s what I said, illegal! Basically I think that people should only be allowed to own one home. Every person or “family unit” (however that might be construed) ought only to be allowed one place of residence to call their own.
Now of course there’s the anarchists and socialists who would argue that nobody should be allowed to own any property whatsoever, and that everyone should have a place to live but nobody can “own” their place (as in sell it for more money) and nobody can pay rent. No landlords, no homeowners, no tenants. Just happy residents. And I’m kind of down with that, truth be told. But that would be such another world entirely, and possibly a bit too radical to contemplate, so for now I’m just going to argue for the one home policy.
Nobody needs to own more than one home. If you have more than one, you have too many. End of story.
Oh, but wait, now you are going to say, “But what about people who want to rent? Students, transients, etc?” Well, I think that one thing to consider is that more people who would normally rent would be able to buy a home because homes on the whole would be more affordable so less people would have to rent. But then for the people who really don’t want to own a home, all the homes not owned privately would be owned by the government and rented to people at a reasonable rate.
Sell your goddam investment property and let someone who needs their own home buy it. For the love of god. Balance the scales already.
i agree. and then my rent wouldn’t be ridiculously high for a house with what essentially has an outside toilet. 3km from the CBD of one of the greatest cities in the world, and my toilet is in a shed. WTF???
Also i want to buy a house in Brunswick .not in my lifetime…
So your saying lets live in communist Australia. Youre a F@#$king idiot.
sorry becky, just catching up on your blog (HD fail meant i lost all my RSS feeds).
What is your opinion on holiday houses? do these fit into the ‘one only’ rule? if so, what is the definition of when a house is a holiday house vs a place of residence? if not, how would they be handled? still government owned, and rental by application (as they would only be required for a short time)? or you’d have to rent them, but you just wouldn’t use them much?
i think the only owning one place idea has some merit, but i fear that it would drive even more $$ into other investment alternatives that in reality have far worse effects (see hedge funds, derivatives, high risk tools). but then it might end meaning more money in safer options. the money of the wealthy has to go somewhere.
oh and its great to be catching up on these…