^ Well, the other issue with Baron's comment is that even with fixed, 30 year residential mortgages, he's basically suggesting that "if your property value goes up, you should pay a higher mortgage rate to the bank" as some sort of twisted way to punish property owners for accumulating wealth.
As Tom in Chicago would say: that's now how any of this works.
First of all, the majority of home owners are not landlords. So if my income stays the same but my home value goes up because I bought in an appreciating area, then Baron is suggesting that I should pay more to the bank. Even if my income is the same? What sense does that make? That could actually penalize people for seeing an increase in property values, and unnecessarily, because you are only enriching your lender, not the general public.
Secondly, why is there even a need to penalize people who buy property? People who rent have the convenience of getting to leave whenever they want, plus they don't have to pay the taxes or maintain the building. Owners are tied to the property whether it rises or falls, and due to that equity they should be allowed to benefit from the asset's rise just as they would suffer when the asset declines.
|