Why don't you sell your mansion or large house?

[Quintessence]

Call it as you like but what you call
greed looks to me like jealousy turned
inside out.

Alternatively, some people have compassion and kind hearts. Those tend to be the ones who look at this sort of investor-house-flipping behavior as greed because it is putting profits over people. Most of the problems in my country today are caused by that avaricious mentality, from humans trashing habitats to the problems with affordable housing. That's why regulatory throttles are important - capitalism becomes too exploitative with its insipid pursuit of profit over all other considerations. Being okay with exploiting others is hardly anything to be jealous of.

 

[Audie]

Alternatively, some people have compassion and kind hearts. Those tend to be the ones who look at this sort of investor-house-flipping behavior as greed because it is putting profits over people. Most of the problems in my country today are caused by that avaricious mentality, from humans trashing habitats to the problems with affordable housing. That's why regulatory throttles are important - capitalism becomes too exploitative with its insipid pursuit of profit over all other considerations. Being okay with exploiting others is hardly anything to be jealous of.

How did I " put profit over people" , display
greed or exploit anyone.

Adding pious self righteousness to
ignorance and jealousy hardly improves it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Alternatively, some people have compassion and kind hearts. Those tend to be the ones who look at this sort of investor-house-flipping behavior as greed because it is putting profits over people.

That's the liberal straw man, ie, that investing in
housing harms others. Nay, it also benefits others.
Renters get nicer homes. Neighborhoods are improved.
Workers get employment. Property tax revenue increases.

But what do liberals do?
They prevent construction of cheap housing.
So @audi is on to something, ie, jealousy turned inside out.
But it's also liberal shortsightedness about the economics
of residential housing as affected by zoning, housing, &
building ordinances. To liberal regulators....
Think before you regulate.

 

[Quintessence]

How did I " put profit over people" , display
greed or exploit anyone.

I'm not talking about you and I don't see any reason to make this about you, personally. Even if you have been personally guilty of reducing affordable housing in a market, your decisions didn't happen in a vacuum. I'm far less interested in petty finger pointing than looking at the systemic framework under which things like this are possible or encouraged.

That's the liberal straw man, ie, that investing in
housing harms others. Nay, it also benefits others.

It does both, obviously, the specifics depending on the situation. As @The Sum of Awe mentioned we're talking about specific abuses of the system that cause problems with affordable housing even for middle class prospective buyers. It doesn't apply to every situation but is a growing problem that needs to be addressed in some way, probably by regulation. Problems happen when investors are buying up the market so much that everybody else is effectively shut out of it. This has happened more in some communities than others, but it is a nationwide problem. It's been impacting mobile homes too, and in my state there have been efforts to prevent mobile home owners from being basically forced out of their homes by lack of regulation on investment groups (often out-of-state investment groups). It's a complicated, ugly problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does both, obviously, the specifics depending on the situation.

No solution is perfect for all.
Public housing takes money from taxpayers.

As @The Sum of Awe mentioned we're talking about specific abuses of the system that cause problems with affordable housing even for middle class prospective buyers.

I address problems of the middle class and the poor.

It doesn't apply to every situation but is a growing problem that needs to be addressed in some way, probably by regulation. Problems happen when investors are buying up the market so much that everybody else is effectively shut out of it.

If they shut everyone out, there'd be no profit in buying.
So I don't buy that argument. However, increasingly
desirable areas will shut out new buyers who can't
afford it. They should buy someplace cheaper.
No one has the right to live anyplace they want.

This has happened more in some communities than others, but it is a nationwide problem. It's been impacting mobile homes too, and in my state there have been efforts to prevent mobile home owners from being basically forced out of their homes by lack of regulation on investment groups (often out-of-state investment groups). It's a complicated, ugly problem.

"Ugly" because government prohibits the
market from building affordable housing.
In many places it bans tiny houses, small
houses, multi-family houses, townhouses,
& limits unrelated people living together.

 

[Audie]

I'm not talking about you and I don't see any reason to make this about you, personally. Even if you have been personally guilty of reducing affordable housing in a market, your decisions didn't happen in a vacuum. I'm far less interested in petty finger pointing than looking at the systemic framework under which things like this are possible or encouraged.



It does both, obviously, the specifics depending on the situation. As @The Sum of Awe mentioned we're talking about specific abuses of the system that cause problems with affordable housing even for middle class prospective buyers. It doesn't apply to every situation but is a growing problem that needs to be addressed in some way, probably by regulation. Problems happen when investors are buying up the market so much that everybody else is effectively shut out of it. This has happened more in some communities than others, but it is a nationwide problem. It's been impacting mobile homes too, and in my state there have been efforts to prevent mobile home owners from being basically forced out of their homes by lack of regulation on investment groups (often out-of-state investment groups). It's a complicated, ugly problem.

Ah, special laws for each situation

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.
But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?
Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

If people move to smaller homes, it helps with climate change. Jets may be excused for people who need to be in many places all the time.

Smaller houses are better for the environment, but doing it because of what someone in a book allegedly said and was recorded third hand and written down decades after the fact?
I did sell the house I had. But it wasn't for Jesus but rather so I could get out of Indiana. I'm not trying to get into his Heaven anyways.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I suppose I noticed it as a kid when looking at new housing developments, but I didn't really think about it until I was in the buyer's market. All anyone builds are those stupid McMansions. I live in a college town, so anything that's reasonably-priced or smaller in scale often gets bought up by investors and turned into a rental property. Regular people - I'm not even talking about the poor, just people on a middle class income - cannot compete with that.



Segueing from the above, we need to put a cork in the investor class ruining the housing market. They have a purchasing power regular people cannot match and it ruins it for everyone else. Regulators need to step in. Exactly what that would look like I'd leave up to the experts, but as a rule of thumb if you're not living in it you shouldn't be allowed to own it. I'd include apartments in that - had a great experience with an on-site, in-residence manager and the place tanked after that changed (while the rents skyrocketed).

Just a reminder for me to push for it politically. "If you're not living in it you shouldn't be allowed to own it." - nice.

 

[Sand Dancer]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.
But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?
Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

We just moved from a 2,650 sf house on 2 acres to a 1,600 sf condo. We love it!

 

[Sand Dancer]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.
But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?
Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

I feel the same about behemoth vehicles that get bad gas mileage.

 

[wellwisher]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.
But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?
Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

If people move to smaller homes, it helps with climate change. Jets may be excused for people who need to be in many places all the time.

This has to do with the ego. If you are rich, you can be ignorant, mean and annoying, since your money can compensate. It can buy you friends and allows you to hire others to make you look good. You can indulge all your senses and move in fast circles with the outer world pushing your buttons for you.

The poor man is reduced to just their essence. He needs to be lifted in other ways, to feel a sense of rising. The rich man does not need to develop inner worth, since they can live on a surface, which is maintained by others; yes men and trophy wife. The poor man has to find joy in simple things.

If I was poor I would need to work hard, to find a place of peace and joy, especially if I live among those who seek things to create their self illusion of outer worth.

If I was to win a large lottery, I no longer need to look at You-Tube videos to maintain my old things. Now I can sit by the new pool and hire people care for my estate. The girls who never noticed me before, now all love me and now I have so many friends who come to my parties.

The rich man lives on the surface with money able to buy the training wheels of life. The poor man cannot use the surface for self esteem, since that surface brings you down. He needs to look inside for what is free; treasures of the mind. Blessed are the poor since they seek treasure from within.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This has to do with the ego. If you are rich, you can be ignorant, mean and annoying, since your money can compensate. It can buy you friends and allows you to hire others to make you look good. You can indulge all your senses and move in fast circles with the outer world pushing your buttons for you.

The poor man is reduced to just their essence. He needs to be lifted in other ways, to feel a sense of rising. The rich man does not need to develop inner worth, since they can live on a surface, which is maintained by others; yes men and trophy wife. The poor man has to find joy in simple things.

If I was poor I would need to work hard, to find a place of peace and joy, especially if I live among those who seek things to create their self illusion of outer worth.

If I was to win a large lottery, I no longer need to look at You-Tube videos to maintain my old things. Now I can sit by the new pool and hire people care for my estate. The girls who never noticed me before, now all love me and now I have so many friends who come to my parties.

The rich man lives on the surface with money able to buy the training wheels of life. The poor man cannot use the surface for self esteem, since that surface brings you down. He needs to look inside for what is free; treasures of the mind. Blessed are the poor since they seek treasure from within.

Yes, money can do that, but so can religion. People use many things to cover for bad character.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.
But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?
Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

If people move to smaller homes, it helps with climate change. Jets may be excused for people who need to be in many places all the time.

I think you make a false assumption.
I just moved to a bigger house.
It consumes less energy then my previous house. It's not black and white.

It's not a "mansion". It's a simple family home. It's "big" for middle class standards I guess.
I'm not interested in big mansions or half castles though. Far to much maintenance.
But I do care about having enough room for my 2 kids to play, for my hobby (drums) and to be able to host family events of 15 to 25 people (and thus also be able to cook for that many people).

When I'm old and the kids are out of the house, I see myself downsizing.

And off course, I don't care much for what Jesus said just because it was "Jesus".
Statements fall and stand on their own merit, regardless of who says them.
And that particular statement is one that just makes me shrug my shoulders and walk away.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I think you make a false assumption.
I just moved to a bigger house.
It consumes less energy then my previous house. It's not black and white.

It's not a "mansion". It's a simple family home. It's "big" for middle class standards I guess.
I'm not interested in big mansions or half castles though. Far to much maintenance.
But I do care about having enough room for my 2 kids to play, for my hobby (drums) and to be able to host family events of 15 to 25 people (and thus also be able to cook for that many people).

When I'm old and the kids are out of the house, I see myself downsizing.

And off course, I don't care much for what Jesus said just because it was "Jesus".
Statements fall and stand on their own merit, regardless of who says them.
And that particular statement is one that just makes me shrug my shoulders and walk away.

Yes I mentioned that I think it's fine if you have kids, and i'm glad you plan on downsizing afterwards, even if your big house is more energy-efficient than a smaller one. Maybe some other family can move into it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I mentioned that I think it's fine if you have kids, and i'm glad you plan on downsizing afterwards, even if your big house is more energy-efficient than a smaller one. Maybe some other family can move into it.

Just to clarify....

The reason I would likely downsize has nothing to do with "other people" or any utopian idea of organizing society or what I think is or isn't "responsible living".

The actual reason would be that I don't see myself maintaining a big house when I'm +75.

Personally, I think the whole "people living in mansions" is just peanuts when it comes to climate or "responsible living" or whatever.

There are MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger fish to go after.

Like national airline flights used for distances that take only 1h by car.
Like the whole idea of private jets or private helicopters.
Like using coal and gas instead of (modern) nuclear reactors / wind / solar for generating energy.
Like the massive and unneeded use of plastics and wasteful packaging of products in general.

If I would own and heat 100 castles, I would have a carbon footprint of ZERO if the required energy for that heating was generated through nuclear / wind / solar instead of coal and gas.

Big houses are not a problem at all when it comes to things like pollution and carbon emissions.
The house doesn't have to emmit anything.
It's the factory that provides the house with electricity which emits all that carbon.
That's where the problem exists and where it needs to be solved.

Solve it there, and it matters not if you own a castle or a hut.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Just to clarify....

The reason I would likely downsize has nothing to do with "other people" or any utopian idea of organizing society or what I think is or isn't "responsible living".

The actual reason would be that I don't see myself maintaining a big house when I'm +75.

Personally, I think the whole "people living in mansions" is just peanuts when it comes to climate or "responsible living" or whatever.

There are MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger fish to go after.

Like national airline flights used for distances that take only 1h by car.
Like the whole idea of private jets or private helicopters.
Like using coal and gas instead of (modern) nuclear reactors / wind / solar for generating energy.
Like the massive and unneeded use of plastics and wasteful packaging of products in general.

If I would own and heat 100 castles, I would have a carbon footprint of ZERO if the required energy for that heating was generated through nuclear / wind / solar instead of coal and gas.

Big houses are not a problem at all when it comes to things like pollution and carbon emissions.
The house doesn't have to emmit anything.
It's the factory that provides the house with electricity which emits all that carbon.
That's where the problem exists and where it needs to be solved.

Solve it there, and it matters not if you own a castle or a hut.

I heard that big houses are a big problem to the environment.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Just to clarify....

The reason I would likely downsize has nothing to do with "other people" or any utopian idea of organizing society or what I think is or isn't "responsible living".

The actual reason would be that I don't see myself maintaining a big house when I'm +75.

Personally, I think the whole "people living in mansions" is just peanuts when it comes to climate or "responsible living" or whatever.

There are MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger fish to go after.

Like national airline flights used for distances that take only 1h by car.
Like the whole idea of private jets or private helicopters.
Like using coal and gas instead of (modern) nuclear reactors / wind / solar for generating energy.
Like the massive and unneeded use of plastics and wasteful packaging of products in general.

If I would own and heat 100 castles, I would have a carbon footprint of ZERO if the required energy for that heating was generated through nuclear / wind / solar instead of coal and gas.

Big houses are not a problem at all when it comes to things like pollution and carbon emissions.
The house doesn't have to emmit anything.
It's the factory that provides the house with electricity which emits all that carbon.
That's where the problem exists and where it needs to be solved.

Solve it there, and it matters not if you own a castle or a hut.

I still think big houses are a huge contributor and if your city gets its energy from coal, you are still using less.

 

[Kfox]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.

What if you are a school teacher? Or a Fireman? Why are only laborers, scientists, and engineers exempt?

But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?

If someone gave me enough money for it to buy a better house; yeah!

Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

Did Jesus make exceptions for laborers, scientists, and engineers? Or are you just doing that.

If people move to smaller homes, it helps with climate change. Jets may be excused for people who need to be in many places all the time.

Why not excuse larger homes too! They cost more, creating more jobs, which create more taxes that can be used to feed the poor, and fight climate change.

 

[Kfox]

Segueing from the above, we need to put a cork in the investor class ruining the housing market. They have a purchasing power regular people cannot match and it ruins it for everyone else. Regulators need to step in. Exactly what that would look like I'd leave up to the experts, but as a rule of thumb if you're not living in it you shouldn't be allowed to own it. I'd include apartments in that - had a great experience with an on-site, in-residence manager and the place tanked after that changed (while the rents skyrocketed).

It costs a lot more to purchase a home for rental purposes than it does to live in it, because banks charge a higher interest rate for non-owner occupied. Also, many areas require 80% owner occupied purchases; IOW once 20% become rentals, they will only sell to owner-occupied.

 

[Sand Dancer]

First off, if you are a hard-working manual laborer or a really good scientist/engineer, I want to lick your boots and you are better than a politician in my book and I don't mind how big your house is.
But if you are not raising a lot of kids, will you consider selling your house?
Jesus said it's harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than to pass into the eye of the needle; in other words you have to abandon your posessions.

If people move to smaller homes, it helps with climate change. Jets may be excused for people who need to be in many places all the time.

People sometimes have giant houses for an investment. What gets me is giant cars. They depreciate, so they are often just gas hogs.