It would probably help if you didn’t have to buy the floor every dang time
Tax wealth, not income. Pretty simple. (Not in NL) I live on a street that is entirely owned by one family. All the houses.
There are places in the city centre that have been empty since forever because they’re investments. It literally doesn’t matter whether rent is paid because they’re still making money just by banks allowing people to buy and sell shares of the building. The perceived value is more important than somebody living in it.
Things like that should be taxed so much that they are forced to sell. For example every month the place is empty or not rented, the tax rate doubles. If the place is declared as a third+ home, it should also be considered unrented.
But Blackstone needs to generate revenue somehow… Edit: Blackrock to Blackstone, thx @[email protected]
Does Blackrock have a large number of houses in the Netherlands?
This appears to be a mix-up: OP presumably means Blackstone, a large US real estate investor that owns thousands of residential properties in the Netherlands.
It sounds bad but it is a consequence of female emancipation. If a couple has double the income then a scarce resource like housing ends up costing exactly what a couple can afford.
The situation is actually even better than described. Poor people rent flats. Only a fraction of the population buys homes. The poor people lower the average income but not the average price of a house.
It’s a consequence of not building enough housing for decades now.
Absolutely. But given those circumstances the prices are still reasonable.
Wonderful. Still a fuckton of old people living alone or with two people in horses built for entire families. Understandable at an individual level for sentimental reasons but a catastrophe for the housing market and for society in general .
I think you’re attacking the wrong people.
If you’ved lived in the same home for 50 years, brought up children there, made and maintained a garden there, formed a community with your neighbours, would you want to move?
Old people living in a home with 3 bedrooms instead of 1 is at the very bottom of the list of reasons there’s a housing crisis.
Businesses owning hundreds of homes, artificially manipulating supply, landlords profiteering and increasing rents every single year, they are far more to blame than a granny who just wants to end her days in the house she’s made home.
Let’s not start blaming old people - we have one problem in Europe right now in regards to housing. The massive urbanization going on. People are moving from rural areas into the bigger cities. And those cities haven’t built enough new housing for all residents. Just one example: In my town the university has grown - there are more people coming to study and they need housing, but nobody constructed additional dorms. Let’s not blame old people for staying in their homes, let’s blame the government for steering us into a totally predictable housing crisis here.
Seriously dumb take. So now housing crisis is the fault of people who just want to continue living in their lifelong houses and communities.
I could say the fault it that younger people don’t want to form families and prefer to live each one in their own house. But I know that’s not the issue also
I don’t follow, what’s your proposal for them?
Move to smaller houses, so that the larger houses become available for younger folks with families, so that they can leave the smaller houses, they become more available and become cheaper.
But as the other commenter says, this is really not the issue because the only thing this solves is folks raising families in small houses.
It’s hard to downsize, and it may not always be affordable. In my part of the world, because of a few reasons between markets and mortgages, a 350m2 house is worth 80-90% as much as a 175m2 house. If the house has been in the family for 30 years that makes it worse because the house isn’t “updated”, so it’s possible to halve the living space and end up with a tax bill for your trouble.
