Is homeownership overrated in American culture?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Very much so. In Europe you don't see any of this "YOU MUST OWN A HOME TO BE A PRODUCTIVE, SUCCESSFUL PERSON!!!111!1" nonsense like we have here. OK that has diminished a bit, but I'm sure it'll be back in another 5-10 years.

[Frodo]

Only if you can't afford it. 

[k-onmmunist]

Europe suck balls. You socialist nutcases really need  to lay off using us as an example.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yes, and its once again primarily the government and the Fed's fault for fostering this mentality. Many people are better off renting, especially considering that even when you become a home"owner", you are still paying rent to the government in the form of property taxes.

[opebo]

It is mainly overrated due to the lack of security - the lack of a proper welfare state, and the lack of a gaurantee of free housing for all.  People rely on 'owning' a house as both a preventative for homelessness and a method of 'saving' for 'a rainy day' - of course it is only marginally effective in either case.

I think we should set a goal of higher home-ownership - say in the 70-80% range - but we should also set the goal of a society in which home-ownership is completely unnecessary.  Consider it a luxury that we all can have, rather than a necessity we all desperately wish we could have.

The way to do this is:
1) a generous, liveable dole
2) free health care
3) free rent (expand section eight to cover any person who is out of work indefinitely)
4) low interest government loans for anyone to buy a house.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is mainly overrated due to the lack of security - the lack of a proper welfare state, and the lack of a gaurantee of free housing for all.  People rely on 'owning' a house as both a preventative for homelessness and a method of 'saving' for 'a rainy day' - of course it is only marginally effective in either case.

I think we should set a goal of higher home-ownership - say in the 70-80% range - but we should also set the goal of a society in which home-ownership is completely unnecessary.  Consider it a luxury that we all can have, rather than a necessity we all desperately wish we could have.

The way to do this is:
1) a generous, liveable dole
2) free health care
3) free rent (expand section eight to cover any person who is out of work indefinitely)
4) low interest government loans for anyone to buy a house.

Sounds like a great recipe to recreate with even more force the housing crisis that wrecked our economy.

[titaniumtux]

The way to do this is:
1) a generous, liveable dole
2) free health care
3) free rent (expand section eight to cover any person who is out of work indefinitely)
4) low interest government loans for anyone to buy a house.

1. You can be a socialist and believe in good will?
2. The USofA is way too big to manage public medicare. Germany is probably the most populated country to have a decent public medicare (correct me if I'm wrong), so the USofA will not have real publc medicare any time soon...the government could never manage such a massive (let alone ridiculously expensive) domestic program
3. America sort of has that (welfare/disability)...the status quo works better because those who are living off the system are still motivated to find affordable housing
4. You think the government would do a better job than the bank? Epic fail...it's bad enough for banks to bite the bullet when people declare bankrupcy...but when the government, who isn't running a lucrative business, has to bite the bullet? You'll have either an extremely corrupt system or the government would collapse.

Home ownership ain't overrated in America I'd say, plus there are places in Europe where housing is quite affordable, like most of Germany and many other parts of Western Europe, mind you Europe and America have their similarities in not-so-affordable housing, like in many parts of London, Paris, Rome, New York, a number of places in California, etc.

[opebo]

It is mainly overrated due to the lack of security - the lack of a proper welfare state, and the lack of a gaurantee of free housing for all.  People rely on 'owning' a house as both a preventative for homelessness and a method of 'saving' for 'a rainy day' - of course it is only marginally effective in either case.

I think we should set a goal of higher home-ownership - say in the 70-80% range - but we should also set the goal of a society in which home-ownership is completely unnecessary.  Consider it a luxury that we all can have, rather than a necessity we all desperately wish we could have.

The way to do this is:
1) a generous, liveable dole
2) free health care
3) free rent (expand section eight to cover any person who is out of work indefinitely)
4) low interest government loans for anyone to buy a house.

Sounds like a great recipe to recreate with even more force the housing crisis that wrecked our economy.

No.  What wrecked the economy was the lack of sufficient income to pay for credit.  With government support and guarantee of working class income, there's no lack of demand or the income to pay for it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Very much so. In Europe you don't see any of this "YOU MUST OWN A HOME TO BE A PRODUCTIVE, SUCCESSFUL PERSON!!!111!1" nonsense like we have here. OK that has diminished a bit, but I'm sure it'll be back in another 5-10 years.

You've obviously never been to Ireland or the UK then...

(Yes, I am aware of the irony of giving you another reason to bash Ireland...)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is mainly overrated due to the lack of security - the lack of a proper welfare state, and the lack of a gaurantee of free housing for all.  People rely on 'owning' a house as both a preventative for homelessness and a method of 'saving' for 'a rainy day' - of course it is only marginally effective in either case.

I think we should set a goal of higher home-ownership - say in the 70-80% range - but we should also set the goal of a society in which home-ownership is completely unnecessary.  Consider it a luxury that we all can have, rather than a necessity we all desperately wish we could have.

The way to do this is:
1) a generous, liveable dole
2) free health care
3) free rent (expand section eight to cover any person who is out of work indefinitely)
4) low interest government loans for anyone to buy a house.

Sounds like a great recipe to recreate with even more force the housing crisis that wrecked our economy.

No.  What wrecked the economy was the lack of sufficient income to pay for credit.  With government support and guarantee of working class income, there's no lack of demand or the income to pay for it.

So the government will provide parasites with loans to buy houses they can't afford at taxpayer expense, and then provide them with "generous" welfare checks at taxpayer expense to pay back the loans. Ingenious!

[opebo]

1. You can be a socialist and believe in good will?

I'm not sure what your point is here - that a reliable dole is impossible as long as the existing highly concentrated power structure is in place?  Perhaps so.

2. The USofA is way too big to manage public medicare. Germany is probably the most populated country to have a decent public medicare (correct me if I'm wrong), so the USofA will not have real publc medicare any time soon...the government could never manage such a massive (let alone ridiculously expensive) domestic program

It is utter nonsense to think there would be any difference between managing a system for 80 million or 300 million.  Though perhaps the fact that the US is so much poorer than Germany (or rather, so much more unequal) would mean it would be more difficult.  But obviously the government is much better at managing such things than the 'privates'.

4. You think the government would do a better job than the bank? Epic fail...it's bad enough for banks to bite the bullet when people declare bankrupcy...but when the government, who isn't running a lucrative business, has to bite the bullet? You'll have either an extremely corrupt system or the government would collapse.

Yes, of course I think the government would do a better job than a bank.  A bank is just a corrupt branch of government as it is.

[opebo]

So the government will provide parasites with loans to buy houses they can't afford at taxpayer expense, and then provide them with "generous" welfare checks at taxpayer expense to pay back the loans. Ingenious!

The State already provides a generous income to parasites, libbertas - they're called 'owners'.

[Vepres]

Homeownership is a commendable goal. No, it's not overrated. Owning a home is a good investment, but one shouldn't compromise their financial security to own one.

[TeePee4Prez]

Homeownership is a commendable goal. No, it's not overrated. Owning a home is a good investment, but one shouldn't compromise their financial security to own one.

Overrated, yes.  However, you have to look at your current situation and see if it's the best thing for the long run.  My answer has always been yes and no in this situation.

[TeePee4Prez]

Very much so. In Europe you don't see any of this "YOU MUST OWN A HOME TO BE A PRODUCTIVE, SUCCESSFUL PERSON!!!111!1" nonsense like we have here. OK that has diminished a bit, but I'm sure it'll be back in another 5-10 years.

It's already rearing it's ugly head with the Tax Credit.  "What you're not taking advantage of that?... How foolish!"  I think we should have let that expire and let the artificially inflated housing market take care of itself.  We need more tax credit to get employers to hire more, not prop up an unsustainable housing market.

The minute that credit expires, housing prices will plummet dramatically in most areas sans the most stable areas.  I guarantee it.

[memphis]

I always saw home ownership as a farce, when you're paying off some huge mortgage. It'd be awesome if more people actually owned their own homes, but very few actually do.

[titaniumtux]

I'm not sure what your point is here - that a reliable dole is impossible as long as the existing highly concentrated power structure is in place?  Perhaps so.

Taxes and subsidies exist because socialists are afraid that such programs wouldn't be funded by good will otherwise.

It is utter nonsense to think there would be any difference between managing a system for 80 million or 300 million.  Though perhaps the fact that the US is so much poorer than Germany (or rather, so much more unequal) would mean it would be more difficult.  But obviously the government is much better at managing such things than the 'privates'.

The split between the rich and poor is irrelevant. Managing medicare for 300M hasn't been done before...you really think the USofA would be able to manage it, in the land where it's easy to sue your doctor and pharmaceutical companies are draining people's wallets through imaginary property patents? No country would be able to pull that off, especially not the USofA considering America's spending habits. Please, opebo, enlighten me...in what capacity could the USofA possibly provide public medicare for Americans?

Yes, of course I think the government would do a better job than a bank.  A bank is just a corrupt branch of government as it is.

Banks are private, though regulated to varying degrees by the government (aside national banks).

They're in the business to make a profit while competing with hundreds of other banks...how could they be corrupt? It's not even close to an oligopoly...if anything only the national banks could be corrupt.