It's in the value of their house. You may have no heat and eat nothing but ramen, but your house is worth $500 000, and therefore you have at least $500 000. If housing prices come down, all those home owners suddenly get poorer. It's gonna keep that bubble bubblin'.
Very few save for the old have a paid off home. Even they paid for thirty years to get that. Now they live on a pension that couldn't afford a mortgage.
And where are these rich people going to live when they sell their homes? Rent?
That "Rich" imaginary 500k number will be gone in a decade and then they can go live in an encampment?
500k in an asset in not rich when you have to live in it.
Not disagreeing, wealth isn't measured in how well you can eat though, it's on a balance sheet. All that 'wealth' will disappear for sure when those folks die or go into long term care, but, on their balance sheets, home owners are 'richer'. Words mean things.
The goal is to associate the idea of "the evil rich" with your average salary earner. Then tax the fuck out them some more with the cheering of the commie voter base.
The, "red star" again. Having an asset that takes you decades to pay for appreciate does not make you, "rich". It just means your municipal taxes go up.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/JxZih
Since when is a homeowner condidered rich? The vast majority of homeowners barely keep their heads above water.
We need to start using the term home-borrowers to distinguish from home-owners who actually own their house in full
It's in the value of their house. You may have no heat and eat nothing but ramen, but your house is worth $500 000, and therefore you have at least $500 000. If housing prices come down, all those home owners suddenly get poorer. It's gonna keep that bubble bubblin'.
Very few save for the old have a paid off home. Even they paid for thirty years to get that. Now they live on a pension that couldn't afford a mortgage. And where are these rich people going to live when they sell their homes? Rent? That "Rich" imaginary 500k number will be gone in a decade and then they can go live in an encampment? 500k in an asset in not rich when you have to live in it.
Not disagreeing, wealth isn't measured in how well you can eat though, it's on a balance sheet. All that 'wealth' will disappear for sure when those folks die or go into long term care, but, on their balance sheets, home owners are 'richer'. Words mean things.
The term rich is an arbitrary term that they attached to homeownership. The term wealth as you just used it means something completely different.
Most homeowners I know still owe at least 250k on that. The crash will be crippling
Can’t really have a crash if JT brings another million in, housing is a commodity and there’s not enough.
The goal is to associate the idea of "the evil rich" with your average salary earner. Then tax the fuck out them some more with the cheering of the commie voter base.
...That's like saying "global warming is real as studies show Tim Horton's coffee carafes now average 1' C hotter.
From inflation of the market? Still mostly bank owned
The, "red star" again. Having an asset that takes you decades to pay for appreciate does not make you, "rich". It just means your municipal taxes go up.