On: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mist...

[sokoloff]

> people cannot inherit property as they cannot pay the inheritance tax on the inflated valuation

I don't understand the mechanism by which this would represent a driver for the valuation to go up. This effect would seem to be small in any case, but also tend to reduce (not increase) prices in its small effect, all else being equal. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point somehow.

[AstralStorm → sokoloff]

The valuation is always extrinsic, and as such, a tacit cartel.

Property should depreciate. If you hear that it doesn't, there's a massive structural problem, likely one of the described above.

And these people using the property thinking they're gaining something are not doing anything about it, dooming their heritors.

[nemo44x → AstralStorm]

Land goes up in value. We have more people and more demand.

Structures get repaired and renovated. My house is over 100 years old but I just pumped 700k into it. Does its value not increase?

Homes are expensive to maintain.

[sokoloff → AstralStorm]

Buildings should depreciate with wear (in real [after inflation] terms). Land should not, at least not land used for residential purposes.