ᐅ Is the real estate market increasingly forcing families to build their own homes?
Created on: 6 Apr 2019 11:35
T
Thierse
Actually, we would prefer to avoid building. Unfortunately, existing properties within a 20 km (12 miles) radius have become quite expensive, and affordable rental houses with small gardens are simply scarce.
Until now, we have been living in an old rental apartment without a garden. We would like to change that, but there is a lack of options. The listings on various platforms are overcrowded with families looking for affordable housing.
Who is familiar with this situation, and how do you deal with it?
Until now, we have been living in an old rental apartment without a garden. We would like to change that, but there is a lack of options. The listings on various platforms are overcrowded with families looking for affordable housing.
Who is familiar with this situation, and how do you deal with it?
haydee schrieb:
Apart from that, in most countries with a high rate of homeownership, families live in smaller houses... and often only with the technical standards of the 1920s... moreover, tenant protection laws in these countries are by far not as strong in favor of tenants as they are here, and in the EU’s top country for homeownership rate, Romania, there is practically no inward migration. On the contrary, every week someone moves away and sells their house.
The homeownership rates are not comparable.
Nordlys schrieb:
chand, we won’t agree on this. I want a different type of state than you do. No nanny state, no mandatory public TV fees, no energy saving regulations, etc. I am liberal, you are something else. K. This reminds me of survey results showing that the happiest people live in countries with the highest taxes (Scandinavia). You can certainly debate what some of that money is wasted on, but overall, lower taxes do not lead to greater happiness—in fact, quite the opposite. Most countries without taxes fall into chaos, with the law of the strongest prevailing.
Nordlys schrieb:
They should just leave us the money; we know better ourselves what is important to us and what isn’t.Funny that you put it so bluntly. Like the saying goes, “If everyone looks out for themselves, then everyone has been taken care of,” or something like that?
In my experience, 99% of these so-called “liberals” are simply people who have been lucky enough never to face a situation where they had to actively rely on help from others, while at the same time successfully ignoring how much they have passively benefited from their life circumstances so far.
Everyone can have their own opinion on specific aspects of government action, but coming from a lifelong government employee and dismissively calling it a “nanny state” just because it spends money on things I don’t consider sensible—that’s quite something.
…and I pay taxes for your salary! Unbelievable.
C
chand198616 Apr 2019 21:23Dr Hix schrieb:
while at the same time successfully suppressing how much they have passively benefited from it along their life paths. I don’t want to accuse Karsten of that, since he rightly criticized the wave of privatization in the housing market as “stupid.” However, how that fits with an economically liberal worldview, I still don’t understand.
But regarding your quote: This is especially problematic with entrepreneurs who everywhere demand the withdrawal of the state. Companies disproportionately benefit: employees commute on state-funded roads to work and have generally been educated at state-funded institutions. For academics earning around 100k or more. What company could remain competitive if it had to pay for all that itself? What private individual would not be over-indebted if they had to advance those costs? (see USA)
Today’s liberal politicians perceive the world as if the state is to blame either for too many regulations or for failing to introduce the right regulations. But the market is always right because market results are, by definition, simply correct.
For liberals like me, who want to provide the market with anchor points while otherwise imposing as few regulations as possible on citizens, there are no parties. Mainstream economics (NOT scientific economics) has captured people’s minds so completely that only nonsense can be communicated anymore.
Do civil servants pay each other?
I thought it’s the middle class that shoulders 65% of the total tax burden and from that, civil servants are paid.
Don’t get me wrong, my wife is also a civil servant.
But I still find Nordlys’ opinion valid.
Personal responsibility and encouraging performance instead of relying on the state will help society move forward. Civil servants are needed regardless of how the government is structured.
The problem is the mentality of wanting everything without wanting to do anything in return. When effort is rewarded again and not penalized, those willing and able to perform can also afford more.
I thought it’s the middle class that shoulders 65% of the total tax burden and from that, civil servants are paid.
Don’t get me wrong, my wife is also a civil servant.
But I still find Nordlys’ opinion valid.
Personal responsibility and encouraging performance instead of relying on the state will help society move forward. Civil servants are needed regardless of how the government is structured.
The problem is the mentality of wanting everything without wanting to do anything in return. When effort is rewarded again and not penalized, those willing and able to perform can also afford more.