Well times are changing......

Cars go down in value so many lease and yes they wax them and clean them and do basic maintenance....
they don't need painting cause they are not the Junkers we owned as kids........major repairs are the responsibility of the
warranty and the leasing company.

although when I was 18 I bought a current year 1967 corvette.....

Own what goes up in value....rent what loses value.....

Homes just started going back up in value in the last 2 years.....they lost a ton of money after 2008 crash or bubble as Stumbler talked about...

My condo not far from downtown Dallas is just about back to what I paid for it in 2007..........
I would have been better off renting but I now own it so it is real cheap place to live.

 

Why can't we just redistribute property? A lot of people think it should be done, so your statement "...we all know you can't just redistribute property." is not true on the face of it.

I did paint my first apartment. The landlord provided paint and I provided labor.

There is a finite amount of real estate on this planet. How can a person obtain property, other than inherit it?

 

Bron, do you own your home? Do you own a vacation home? Do you own any acreage? You probably own the mineral rights under it it you do. Then again, you might have deed to the acreage, but not the mineral rights. There are so many restrictions on land use today, you most likely don't know what you can do with "your" land. You have written about all the trees on a mountain and how can someone own all the trees? My neighbor recently had 15 trees cut down and removed from his property. He was visited by the Forestry Service and was told he had to replace all the trees. Not only that, the trees had to be a certain size. That size tree cost 200.00 dollars. So to replace "his" trees will cost him 3,000 dollars. He failed to replace them, they came back to check. He was fined 500.00 per tree. He has 6 months to comply or he will be fined again. So were they really his trees? When he replants them on his land will they be his trees? If he does not replant them what do you think will happen?
If you are wondering how can the government control what he does on his "land", we live in what has been determined to be a critical area. A critical area is any area within 1000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay. It was designated a critical area to prevent runoff of fertilizers into the bay. So all those millionaires that own homes on the Chesapeake Bay really don't own them at all. There really isn't any real land owners in the USA.
If they need to put a highway through your "owned" property, off you go! You no longer own it. If you fail to pay your taxes, eventually you'll be thrown off your land. So tell me about land ownership, and all those trees on the mountain.

There is a finite amount of real estate on this planet. How can a person obtain property, other than inherit it?[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, of course under the current circumstances that may well be correct. However under normal circumstances homes would have never gone down in value. Government interference caused that. As Bron said, there is a finite amount of property. The more owned, the more valuable land becomes because there is only so much land to go around. Think of diamonds, gold, why is it so valuable. Limited supply.
A great inflation fighter is farm land. Tillable acreage. They may discover more gold in the continental US, but they will not discover any more land.

 

[/QUOTE]

I sold all my land, house included. I will never own another lawn mower, as long as I live. All my possessions can be loaded on a truck and I can go anywhere I please.

You are missing the point of the question about the tree. You are pretty much stuck with the property culture and can't see anything else. Probably similar to the way a fish sees water.

Try it this way: When the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, they saw a lot of trees. They assumed these trees were their property and cut them down to build houses. These are not trees they inherited or planted. How is it they owned the trees?

 

Homes never have been a very good investment...ever.........

There are those few place it has been good but how many folks owned homes in Silicon Valley....

They are a piggybank.....tax break under certain circumstances....a hedge against inflation....
under a 30 year mortgage they only become a piggybank after about 15 years....
Average length of time people stay in one home is around 6 years these days.....

Homes don't go up in value.......Money loses it value over time and it takes more money to buy the same house.....

For the high middle and upper income the mortgage deduction against taxes is no more than a subsidy from the govt and
the poor get a rental break under sec 8 housing while the investor gets a govt guarantee of payment for building and owning it.

Farmland had a bubble in 78.....lots of farm land lost to urban sprawl however what is around becomes more productive....

There is very little family farming.....most is large corporate farms and it has a very then return.....

Land is a good place to hold wealth if there is income from someplace else...

There are pros and cons to real property ownership and for some the responsibility is too great,,,,

 

Homes are still a good investment.
The problem is very few people actually own their home. They own a small piece of equity and the you pay interest on the rest of it's value. Sometimes a home increases in value faster than the interest payments add up, but that is rare. We rationalize this by realizing we must pay for some form of shelter, so why not put money into something that increases in value? That is, if you're not buying a house in Detroit, a place where thousands of houses are abandoned and soon to be demolished and the land left to return to nature.

 

Don't want to embarrass you more than you've already embarrassed yourself with your lies.

 

you are brain washed.................

you say they are good investments then show why they aren't.............

better off putting the money in a good REIT........

if they are so fucking good why don't you own one..............

 

There is a difference between having a home mortgage and owning a home. A home mortgage is someone else's investment.

I used to own one. I sold it for a profit and now I rent. I'm no longer tied to a piece of ground and I like that way.

 

Oh then you are saying Tommie is correct in his assumptions....

and you where wrong the first time...........

 

I once thought I was wrong, but was mistaken. Please read the posts. I don't need to repeat myself.

 

looks like in your words Tommie WAS CORRECT.....

 

Incidentally, I've still got a bridge to sell. SOUND INVESTMENT, Y'ALL.

 

If that's all you want to hear, run with it.

 

Actually my point was all privately owned private "land" actually benefited the public. From taxes paid on it. Home ownership encourages people to improve the property that increases the tax assessment. Renters rarely improve a property. So home"ownership" is usually more beneficial to communities.
My other point was in reality no one ever owns the land, like they now own a shotgun. That is not to say they will always own that shotgun. However as it stands now there are no restrictions on shotgun ownership. Except barrel length. Real estate is taxed yearly every where. If you fail to pay the taxes your property will be seized.
It also can be taken from the owner for the good of the public, such as for highways. True you are compensated, but you still do not have complete control of your "land" When you own beach front homes in almost all tidal areas you do not own the beach. You must allow public access to the beach where ever the government deems it necessary.

 

Communists? Socialists? "Progressives"? Who cares what liberals want to call themselves? Let's just call them what they are.... DEAD WRONG.

What hath liberalism wrought?...

Babes without mothers AND fathers in the home (due to a devaluing of marriage and commitment to others...only self-interested hedonism...pushed and advocated by liberals) who grow up to have various issues (educationally, emotionally, and socially).

Sex without self-restraint and consequences. (Due to the so called "sexual liberation" movement which was begin by a liar, a fraud, and perhaps also a bastard guilty of sex crimes against children named Kinsey.)

Babes being almost born (except for their heads still in the womb) having an instrument shoved into the back of their heads which is then opened up and their brains sucked out. (No anesthetic for the baby who suffers horribly on the pagan altar of "choice.")

Racial division and hatred. (Due to Afrocentrism, etc.)

Etc. Etc.

Liberalism is DEAD WRONG and BAD for society. It should be REJECTED by all right thinking people.

 

Yes. It is.

But not all change is good for people, their freedoms, their pocketbooks, their families, etc.

For example, it's now MORE DIFFICULT to raise well-adjusted, respectful, and disciplined children in this "Brave New Liberal World" which liberalism in all of its forms has brought to us.

Also, mark my words....

There will be a clash (actually there already is) between those with traditional values (the ones which made America and Western Civilization great) and those with the "new values" of liberalism. Where do you think that this will lead?

When liberals are out of power they're (mostly) harmless (and are funny foaming-at-the-mouth nutjobs to laugh at ).

However, when they're in power and control they're DANGEROUS. Especially toward those who refuse to "bow the knee" at their self-created altar of absolutist liberal "morality."

 

My other point was that home "ownership" is better for the "community" than property" distribution". The first, home
ownership stimulates the economy, the other does not. Home ownership creates a huge tax base, the other does not. Home ownership encourages folks to take care of the governments, er I mean, their property.
One of the original ideas of this thread was to encourage thoughts of what form of "government" actually benefits the "community" (the people) the most. As you can see no form is perfect, we have to take from each to improve the one we have.
Unfortunately our progressives except for a couple, automatically became defensive and resorted to trying to silence constructive dialog. To those, no one is trying to ridicule anything.

 

Joe you are preaching to the choir with post to me..............

the change I am speaking of has to do with financial matters not a political one or for that matter moral either....