Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Veni, vidi, teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                             

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

The Family Plan

Why am I still paying rent in 2020?
  (+5, -1)
(+5, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

My family have never been wealthy. They work for a living like so many other families. There is one thing I don't understand though -- perhaps as families get larger than replacement -- why am I still paying rent in 2020?

My ancestors in their collective force should have earned enough cash in life to afford multiple family homes by now. I should be living rent free, as the houses should have been passed down through generations, not sold to pay for trinkets.

I propose banks offer a service: a family intergenerational saving plan which is a way of saving between generations. You commit a % of your income to it and at some point in the future, a house is automatically purchased as a permanent home for the family. There would be an app for mobile phones to collect votes on what property to buy based on surname. So families could agree to form a base around a certain area. There can be multiple homes owned by the family plan. A bit like a property in a trust that is accessible to normal people, without the strict need for trustees (it's a hassle to administer and pass them down through generations) If you're a member of the family, you can live in any purchased property rent free.

chronological, Nov 18 2020

List of countries by homeless population ... https://en.wikipedi...homeless_population
[kdf, Nov 18 2020]

The Netherlands, specifically https://en.wikipedi...herlands#Statistics
In international comparison, the proportion of homelessness among legal residents of the Netherlands (0.23%) is higher than homelessness in the United States (0.18%), slightly lower than in France (0.21%), and lower than in the United Kingdom (0.31%) and Germany (0.35%). [kdf, Nov 18 2020]

Apple - 0.005 percent tax https://www.cnbc.co...x-rate-in-2014.html
[xenzag, Nov 18 2020]

Getting deals done. https://youtu.be/ut7yhjaqK6I
(it's still work though) [Mindey, Nov 18 2020]

[link]






       Since you asked... Perhaps you're paying rent because your ancestors didn't invest or save wisely enough, and you're not doing well enough yourself yet to buy a house?   

       I'll give your plan some thought to see if it seems reasonable, but I know it's not the only way for people to get and keep a home.   

       My family has never been wealthy, but I own my house free and clear. Haven't paid rent since 1993, haven't had a mortgage since 2004. None of the houses I've bought and lived in were my "ancestral home."
kdf, Nov 18 2020
  

       In many more advanced societies, a high percentage of housing is state owned and rented out at affordable stabilised rates. In the Netherlands for example this is 32% of all housing. In Scotland the figure is 24% and in England it's 18%. There are many advantages to living in social housing. It's affordable; maintenance is usually carried out by the state or city, and there is no fear of being evicted by a greedy landlord to increase the rent. The right to decent affordable housing is a fundamental. Without it you get thousands sleeping on the streets as per San Francsiso and other places where the ethos is that of obscene wealth through the maintenance of inequality. ie one person can have a home with solid gold toilets, while families sleep in moth eaten tents in the street. The greater the inequality, the greater the control the greedy have over the have nots.
xenzag, Nov 18 2020
  

       Xenzag, look at statistics by country to compare how the countries you mentioned as well as others are doing. According to the first two I found, the United States actually has a LOWER rate of homelessness nationwide than the Netherlands, UK, Canada, and quite a few others you'd expect to be doing better - but that only speaks to the country as a whole, not the condition of one city.
kdf, Nov 18 2020
  

       kdf, I have enough cash for a deposit, I just haven't pulled the trigger. I live in Scotland.   

       I have an illness, schizophrenia which makes it difficult to plan for the future, because there can be periods of time where I cannot work (software engineer).   

       Either my ancestors flittered away what wealth they had and were poor investors and the wealth was diluted through generations in larger families. I think the wealth was diluted a bit. I would still expect some savings to pass their way down to me, I have yet to receive a sizable inheritance. I would prefer the life of my family members live for that much longer than an inheritance though.   

       Think of this idea as houses in trusts as a service. Trusts are bit of a pain to setup because you have to go through lawyers.   

       I imagine an app where you can see your family homes on a map and stay at any of them rent free. So you could be staying at your grandparents ancestral home from any generation.
chronological, Nov 18 2020
  

       Chronological - I do hope you find a way to buy a house, it's the best financial move you can make. I think you'll find getting a bank to set this "family plan" home for you will be no less onerous than any traditional trust plan - and you'll still need lawyers...
kdf, Nov 18 2020
  

       Wonder what the homeless rate is in China? I saw no-one on the street in Japan, but there must be some? In Dublin the homeless rate is enormous (greed again) given the billions raked in by resident tax haven companies like Apple. (0.005% tax paid - look it up if you don't believe the figure - link) Then there people like Trump who only paid $750 yet claims to have billions. Inequality means the small number of haves have a lot and the very large number of have nots have very little.
xenzag, Nov 18 2020
  

       That is called "How the World is" and no doubt has been bemoaned by the less privileged since your species was capering around the Black Monolith ...
8th of 7, Nov 18 2020
  

       The world is how people make it, and it can be made fairer.
xenzag, Nov 18 2020
  

       "Cui Bono ?"
8th of 7, Nov 18 2020
  

       Not him. I detest him and his vile band and their vile music. They copied Simple Minds who remain excellent. That Edge moron is destroying an eco system to build a giant mansion in Malibu.
xenzag, Nov 18 2020
  

       In the US, estate taxes were created specifically to drain dynasties because they were seen as a hindrance to progress.   

       As the population grows larger, we each get a smaller portion of the pie we call earth, and the competition for the best pieces of it gets fiercer. That seems like an unchangeable law.
RayfordSteele, Nov 18 2020
  

       // Not him. //   

       <baffled/>   

       That's obscure, even by your standards. Do you not understand Latin ?
8th of 7, Nov 18 2020
  

       Hah, point for xenzag. Even *I* got that one.
kdf, Nov 18 2020
  

       Well well, [xen] and [kdf] ganging up on us - again.   

       No, not paranoid ... not paranoid ...
8th of 7, Nov 18 2020
  

       Oh, paranoia isn't so bad. I find myself strangely sympathetic to Chronological on this one. Even if I don't think his concept will work, I respect that he put the suggestion forward.   

       Definitely need a drink.
kdf, Nov 18 2020
  

       Oh, the suggestion is perfectly workable apart from the fact that at the moment you've got the wrong sort of people ...
8th of 7, Nov 18 2020
  

       There's an ethical consideration of having families larger than 2+ children.   

       If you have only 2 children, you can combine houses of two separate families (the assets of the mother and father's families) to provide for both children.   

       If you have more than 2 children, you're diluting your wealth down the generations.   

       If you're a parent, you should offer your children the opportunity for rent free living for as long as you can bear.
chronological, Nov 18 2020
  

       // for as long as you can bare. //   

       That varies. Many humans look really bad without clothing.
8th of 7, Nov 18 2020
  

       People pay rent because there is competition for locations. I think even now it is possible to live rent-free by, for example, living on a boat at sea, or high in the wilderness mountains of some obscure country on the wrong side of the world.   

       There has been political discussion about this for centuries - the idea that the land surface of the Earth should be a common inheritance of all humans, which is bad luck for the animals and plants, but who cares about them. And then discussion of how to equitably divide up said land surface so one person gets a town house in Mayfair and another gets Chatsworth and another gets a flat in a block beside the motorway on the outskirts of Basingstoke.
pocmloc, Nov 19 2020
  

       They should count themselves fortunate; at least the flat's not actually IN Basingstoke ...
8th of 7, Nov 19 2020
  

       It's a tricky one - on one hand you've got the principle of equality for all, and on the other, you've got the natural desire to do well by your own family. In this instance, those two fairly commonly held beliefs end up in conflict with one another.   

       I'm also of the opinion that I might not have studied or worked as hard at being good at what I do without a degree of peril in terms of paying the rent - but I'm not sure how much of that is bias on my part - let's assume it's true - then isn't it good for children to make their own way in the world, with all its perils and pitfalls?   

       There is that archetypal narrative of the cosseted offspring of successful parents failing to realise their privilege and losing it all to gambling and hedonism. Again, that might be some deep rooted protestant bias - these things are after all cautionary tales and by definition deliberately bias inducing, I know of exactly zero people who actually fall into this category.   

       Given the option, would I want my children to benefit from my hard work, and have some familial seat paid-for and available for future generations - sure. I think it's interesting to think about long-term stability and how you structure intergenerational culture to successfully achieve this. If history is anything to go by, the trick would appear to be to follow the aristocracy and build massive country manors at the centre of rural populations from which cultural, social and commercial ties can be established to form ongoing, organically operating systems. Once established, you then need to somehow get the family to adhere to sensible values and not spunk it all on roulette, wine and skydiving.
zen_tom, Nov 19 2020
  

       This is a great post, if not for the specific idea, for the conversation. Love discussions about specific issues and their possible solutions rather than generic political party line nonsense.
doctorremulac3, Nov 19 2020
  

       That's exactly the sort of thing that Hit ... ah, no, you don't catch us that easily.   

       Nice try, though.
8th of 7, Nov 19 2020
  

       I despise rent seeking behaviours, such as buying houses, splitting them up into flats and renting them out.   

       First you're depriving someone a house at market rates, so you're causing a price increase by outbidding young families.   

       Second, you're introducing an economic rent on productive behaviour by inserting yourself between productive people of society.   

       If you rent out housing, you should be ashamed for the damage and suffering you cause without any benefit to people is staggering.
chronological, Nov 19 2020
  

       I've thought about that. If you buy property and rent it out, your title is "lord", as in "I am your lord. Give me your money!" Adding the preface "land" to it doesn't take the sting away that much.   

       That being said, renters do get to use the land without the long term commitment, down payment etc. But it is serfdom and there's no disagreement that it's something to be avoided.   

       Housing DOES need to be discussed, but as 8th started to point out, that's exactly what hit record making people like me would say.
doctorremulac3, Nov 19 2020
  

       A place to live should be a basic right. It shouldn't be a mansion just a place with amenities which the tenant, if the tenant has any gumption, saves up in order to purchase a better place to stay.   

       For myself, I'm a bit bent on providing for the generation after this next one.
This inventing-thing seems to skip generations in my family and my grandchildren, (should I be blessed with any), will be able to pursue their own interests without constant struggle if I have my way.
  

       You can easily divide rent payments into two halves, one part covers the costs of building maintaining and servicing the building, and the other part covers the monopoly right to occupy a specified fragment of the surface of the earth.   

       It is not difficult to work out the amounts - my grandparents rented a site, but had to provide their own house. On the other side of the coin I currently live in a place owned and run by a charitable trust, which explicitly charges only the costs of maintaining the buildings.   

       Viewed like this, the "monopoly land occupation rights" proportion of the rent can be seen as a kind of private taxation. There are good reasons to question why a private individual should be given that money, as opposed to it going into the collective treasury.   

       The proportion of rent that covers the provision and maintenance of the building is fair enough, since the person who you pay that rent to is responsible for providing a service to you.
pocmloc, Nov 19 2020
  

       "A place to live should be a basic right"
-2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 19 2020
(corrected attribution, 20 Nov, kdf)
  

       That seems to be a common sentiment. But I've always taken it for granted that I have to work for everything. If housing a basic right, what kind can I get if I decide not to work, and just claim I'm entitled to it?
kdf, Nov 19 2020
  

       // a flat in a block beside the motorway on the outskirts of Basingstoke. //   

       As far as I know, there aren't any blocks of flats. It's far worse.
DenholmRicshaw, Nov 19 2020
  

       //what kind can I get if I decide not to work, and just claim I'm entitled to it?// I suppose you get to make false attributions and be entitled to not get criticised for it?
pocmloc, Nov 19 2020
  

       The puritan ethic of work comes before everything else is old fashioned.   

       If people want to spend their lives carrying out their hobbies, so be it. As long as they can afford food, what should stop them?   

       Oh, it's housing costs.
chronological, Nov 19 2020
  

       Old fashioned I may be, but where do things like food & shelter come from, if not work*? And if you work and I don't - can I just come and get your stuff?   

       ---
* defined as anything someone pays me for. some of which might seem like play to others.
kdf, Nov 19 2020
  

       But as [poc] pointed out, most of the cost* isn't the shelter; it's the land the shelter is built on, of which a previous generation of American populists used to sing** "God made the land for the people".   

       *in crowded parts of the world, which nowadays is most of them   

       **to the tune of "Marching through Georgia"
pertinax, Nov 19 2020
  

       //the land the shelter is built on//
It's not the land per se; it's the fact (for the most part) the land is already owned by some-one else, who wants a return for the work they have put in to it. Beyond that, it's just supply/demand and how much more one person is prepared to pay than another.
neutrinos_shadow, Nov 20 2020
  

       I thought Japan does have 50 and 100 year mortgages.   

       Real homelessness will finally dawn on xenzag when the party visits and asks if there's a real need for all those bedrooms and bathrooms, and can some additional folks live with you.   

       That's not only the predicted -- but the demonstrated result of not allowing greedy landlords to charge rent.   

       Why would anyone build a building if you can't make money doing it? Why would anyone buy a building? If they wouldn't, what would be the value of that building? if the value drops, who would fix that building when it breaks.   

       The sheer idiocy of these socialist fantasies boggles the mind.   

       In the US the worst homelessness is in cities that have very strict rent control policies and socialist mayors.
theircompetitor, Nov 20 2020
  

       Whether that's in spite of the policy or because of it is another question.   

       I'm a landlord by default of not being able to sell my prior house for a price that wouldn't lead to financial ruin until we pay it down further. Back when we were setting up the rental we had to decide whether or not to accept section 8 tenants. It came with several strings attached and the upkeep issues from section 8 tenants was, shall we say, notorious.   

       One does wonder that if there were, say, the equivalent of modern day monestaries that were devoted communities towards new causes like scientific research or such, as to how well they could do. Maybe universities with extended-stay graduate programs, where research fellows could just live on- campus without the pressure of making the rent, if that would prove to be a benefit to society.
RayfordSteele, Nov 20 2020
  

       // I suppose you get to make false attributions and be entitled to not get criticised for it?//   

       BURN!...   

       [kdf] I was the one who said "A place to live should be a basic right." which you attributed to [pocmloc].
Yes I know it's naive and socialist but a minimum standard of living should be something nobody is allowed to sink beneath. You want to elevate your status from minimum then standard capitalist rules apply.
  

       [chronological] I'm sorry to hear about your illness. My little brother, (50 now but still my little brother), was diagnosed with schizophrenia at 17. Hard for him to keep a normal job. Sub-contracting seems to suit him but he still lives mostly off the radar credit-wise which makes any mortgage application impossible.
Right now he still works like a bull moose but that will change soon and I'm trying my damnedest to ensure that he has something of his own when our system shoves him to the curb.
  

       //the land is already owned by some-one else, who wants a return for the work they have put in to//   

       Apart from certain reclaimed areas near the sea or rivers, I think you'll find that quite a lot of land was already there when the first people came along. And it was quite a lot later than that that one person said "I own this bit and you're not allowed here".
pocmloc, Nov 20 2020
  

       //Whether that's in spite of the policy or because of it is another question. //   

       Even if you accept that there's some room for debate there, there is no doubt as to what happened to housing in countries that decided that a family needs only so much spaces for living, and everyone is entitled to housing.   

       There may be a post-scarcity dynamic that ultimately emerges in housing (and in other fields) due to continuing automation. That's why ultimately something like basic income is probably destined to happen.
theircompetitor, Nov 20 2020
  

       poc, 2f, I have corrected the attribution and noted it inline. sorry.
kdf, Nov 20 2020
  

       //And it was quite a lot later than that that one person said "I own this bit and you're not allowed here".//   

       Hand waving. You have absolutely no idea how long it was before protohumans declared individual ownership of property, but families of monkeys do it now.
Voice, Nov 20 2020
  

       I said //quite a lot later// which could be 10 minutes or 400 billion years, depending on context.   

       Anyway, I note you don't dispute my suggested sequence of events.
pocmloc, Nov 20 2020
  

       "... later could be 10 minutes or 400 billion years, depending on context. Anyway, I note you don't dispute my suggested sequence of events."
-pocmloc, Nov 20 2020
  

       Voice might not, but *I* dispute your sequence of events. Territoriality is "baked in" behavior with human and other species. In some species, groups occupy a home range rather than any individual claiming a specific patch, but it still amounts to " "We/I own this bit and you're not allowed here". You'd have to go back a long way before any "protohumans" to figure out when that type of behavior emerged.
kdf, Nov 20 2020
  

       [libertarian] Me too, with the understanding that libertarianism is not a political system. A libertarian government is like consentual rape - it doesn't mean anything. A libertarian is someone who is willing to let peaceful people live their own lives, which the state never does.
spidermother, Nov 20 2020
  

       ;-) Riminds me of when a woman, horrified, said to me "Are you - are you a racist!?" I made the mistake of trying to have a rational discussion with her; next time I plan on saying "Of course I'm not racist. I kill niggers _and_ gooks."
spidermother, Nov 20 2020
  

       By the way, the projection is rather disturbing; it's as if they're saying "Well, _I_ can't imagine not running over babies unless someone wrote down on a piece of paper that I wan't allowed to, so I don't see why _you_ wouldn't."   

       I think the ultimate blasphemy is to imply that someone, somewhere might be able to do the right thing on their own, without the threat that the one true God - Government - will strike them down if they don't.
spidermother, Nov 20 2020
  

       //groups occupy a home range rather than any individual//   

       That's quite an important distinction.   

       There's another important distinction too, between a small group of individuals, connected by familiar grunts and smells, and a larger group connected by laws and institutions. As a physically weak and ineffectual individual, I rely heavily on the latter to protect me (and my property) from the former.
pertinax, Nov 21 2020
  

       I don't. Not any more. I've come across too many examples of innocent people being beaten and raped, and subject to armed home invasions, and lied about in court, and falsely imprisoned, and searched without any justification, by cops. And I'm only talking about what I've seen first-hand, or been told about face-to-face.   

       Maybe we hang out with different sorts, or maybe I'm just willing to talk about unpleasant topics. But I know I'm far from alone. It still surprise me a little, though, when I ask a question such as "What would you say is the most dangerous criminal gang around?" and get the unhesitating answer "The police".
spidermother, Nov 21 2020
  

       I was once taken in for questioning on suspicion of being a drug- crazed knife murderer. It was a frightening experience, but the police did not do to me any of the things you describe. And, if they had, then there were institutions through which I, or my surviving relatives, could have complained, which is not usually the case in relation to other armed gangs.
pertinax, Nov 21 2020
  

       Government must mostly deal with the mundane addition to the protection of citizens from other citizens. It's not all about preventing violence and rights.
RayfordSteele, Nov 21 2020
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle