Let’s not forget that a huge chunk of the housing supply is owned by real estate companies. This votation changes nothing for them. So at the end of the day, I would not expect a big impact on overall prices or the black market.
So we’re discussing here the fact that people who inherited a large (real) estate have a better standard of living that people who didn’t. Wow. So surprising, so unfair…
On the other side, currently people buying their home with their hard-earned money have to pay more of Kita, just because.
Because they put a potentially large part of their savings in walls instead of not, and have a large debt, so they have to pay more kita and that is so fair!
In the current system, if they have debt it’s deducted from income. Seems pretty fair to mostly base subsidy based on how much disposable income people have (income - basic needs e.g. healthcare/housing), would also work to allow people to deduct rent from income like some cantons do.
Well I was more surprised people are debating the fact that people who inherit a home might have a better standard of living than people who don’t, all things being equal, and that’s described as a “distortion” that imputed rental value would adjust, and that would be fair. It is, if you have communism beliefs.
Then, all paid homes are not inherited real estate. And the one you paid may as well be your heirs’ once upon a time.
Well, this is also the unfortunate thing about black markets and corruption. In the end, they put honest businesses at a disadvantage and out-compete them so in the end, it drifts more and more towards black market and corruption.
Mit dem Lesen und der Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du die Forum-Richtlinien gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist sowie den Haftungsausschluss auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ akzeptierst.