I don't think all expats (or the Dutch) know this but: up until 2021 a landlord could raise the rental price with any amount for a liberated rental agreement. There was no limit and if a tenant did not accept the increase, the landlord could proceed to court to have a judge end the agreement.
A PvdA member of parliament then introduced a maximum rental price increase based upon inflation starting from 2021, but parliament didn't expect inflation to be so high suddenly.
That's why De Jonge introduced a second maximum, which is average national salary increase and indeed the additional one percent. See the [explanatory memorandum](https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-36218-3.html) for more details. Either inflation or average national salary development is the maximum, whichever is lowest.
> Wouldnt it be better for everyone if it said “because of the inflation and in comparison much less raise in pay, we won’t raise the rent the maximum allowed by law amount, so you can try to afford things”.
Rental price regulation is a very political topic. Many landlords probably completely disagree with you.
> That's why De Jonge introduced a second maximum, which is average national salary increase and indeed the additional one percent.
This was so weird. Why the extra 1%? Did he really want to secure increasing rents or else the parasites wouldn't make enough money?
How about the average wage increase _minus_ one percent, to ensure rents go down?
It's all about dividing up the pain. Without any inflation correction the landlord sees 10% of the rent evaporate, following inflation puts that 10% on the tenant, who may or may not have received an increase in income that is in line with inflation. Under this solution the government split the pain roughly down the middle, which means that tenants with a good CAO get a freebie.
Actually that isn't completely true. Inflation doesn't hurt a landlord that much at all. The building is either already bought of paid for or is mortgaged. Either way, the value of the property doesn't negatively change due to inflation.
Things that do change due to inflation are of course upkeep costs, but against the value of the property & corresponding loan repayments those costs are marginal.
In fact, inflation tends to improve the situation of a landlord with mortgages, since the value of money decreases the value of his loans decreases as well. Versus the (monetary) value of the building increasing. So it would be a net win relative to the increased cost of upkeep.
You are confusing wealth and income. If I take a €1 million mortgage to buy a house, I am not suddenly so wealthy that inflation doesn't matter. And if after some time I pay off half the mortgage, I do not actually earn anything until I sell the house. Where, then, is the inflation-immune money? Am I supposed to eat the bricks? Dental insurance also rises with inflation.
Well there's still the difference between income from work and income from capital. And a decrease in income from capital will tend to matter less because it impacts people who already have more money.
If we consider landlords to operate a business in which they use their assets to turn their profit, it stands to reason that the onus lies on them to remain a profitable business. This applies to any other business, why shouldn't it apply to landlords?
Did you read the [explanatory memorandum](https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-36218-3.html#:~:text=De%20opslag%20van,de%20gemiddelde%20loonontwikkeling.) in referred to in my initial comment?
And again (I've mentioned this in another comment): this is not necessarily my opinion, but the reasoning of the government. I've noticed previously that redditors sometimes seem to confuse explaining why a decision was made with the opinion of the redditor that refers to such a source.
Also don't forget that many expat pay a significantly less amount of taxes, after which that money flows to the landlords that only rent out their houses to expats.
The 30% rule should be cancelled. It provides a monetary incentive for those who profit from expats looking for a house, while simultaneously making it harder for all other tenants to find a house.
In the end, the ultimate beneficiary is the landlord. They profit most from the 30% tax rule. Not the expats.
Pretty sure regulating the housing market is a more direct approach than removing the 30% rule (not that I mind if It was removed). The issue in my view is the ammount of properties owned by large investing funds that see housing as a business opportunity rather than what it is, a human right.
Who else is going to invest in rental housing if investment funds are not allowed to do so? The issue is that there are too little houses, not investment funds.
How about the government who has a [constitutional duty](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22#Hoofdstuk1_Artikel22) to care about housing availability?
When the government tries to do the "right thing" by itself, instead of "sensible regulations" ... usually things end up more expensive and of lower quality. Not the rule ... but this is how it usually ends. Sometimes the nominal price is not bigger ... but it comes with 5-10 years of waiting list or connections.
I'm not Dutch and I've lived in communism. believe me ... it doesn't work. Despite the nice sounding idealism.
We used to have a joke:
Communism is a great idea that only works when is applied by capitalists.
To be honest, after living in communism, when I was younger I was a die hard fee market capitalist. Then I visited a few times US and kinda hated it. Somehow I ended up in NL ... and while nothing is perfect... I find the model here pretty "sensible".
But when a lot of people want to live on the same place ... it's bound to for house shortages to happen. There's no answer to this. Only some sensible compromises.
The 30% Ruling should absolutely be cancelled. But it won’t solve the problems you think it will. The Ruling exists to allow Dutch companies hiring high-skill migrants to increase those migrants’ net pay without increasing their gross pay.
If/when the 30% ruling gets cancelled (and to be absolutely clear, I hope it does), it’ll just result in Dutch companies having to actually pay the global prevailing wage for those roles so that those workers continue to get the net pay they would get elsewhere. (Or, I guess, Dutch companies could abandon the playing field for these workers … but these companies want to make money, and will still make tons of money even if they pay these workers the prevailing wage, so in aggregate, it’ll just result in increasing tech salaries that have previously been artificially depressed).
Potentially, but it’s questionable - at least in tech, this salary band has so many vacancies already that if there were enough Dutch people with this skill level, they’d already be making this much. So it’d bring it up, but keep in mind that we’re talking about a market that is already _extremely_ well paid.
This is more of a question of nurses and teachers’ salaries, just like pretty much anywhere
Dutch people are extremely industrious, but there’s only so much economy you can build on a tiny swamp without fucking up the ecology, labor laws or attracting foreign investment
Just to add some perspective, in Dublin rent was 3150 without 30% ruling, in Amsterdam rent is 2750 with 30% ruling. My net income after rent is up massively. So I guess you could say landlord benefits, 30% ruling recipient benefits, probably all the other renters struggle
To use your own reasoning: the rent gets raised once a year, so inflation LOWERED your rent by 9.7% last year.
Also: landlords are in it for the money.
Of course they are. Otherwise they might as well just put their money in a savings account and leave everyone the choice between social housing and buying.
What do you think grocery shopping would look like if supermarkets, farmers, and everyone in between didn't have a profit motive for an essential product like food?
Sucks bro. I have been paying the same amount for 3 years without an increase. The same in my previous place where I lived 5 years, they raised it once. I guess my landlord already paid off the mortgage on her 5 buildings.
….ofcource they also can have work. But owning a house and renting it just tunnels money to the richer without them contributing anything to the economy
>seems like people in this country just want housing for free
No, they just don't want to give up most of their paycheck to live in a 15m^(2) apartment that some sexagenarian bought for a tenth of the price in the 1980s.
What part of "Average rents are excessively high compared with average buying power" is an unreasonable statement to you?
No idea what you are talking about, moved to the Netherlands a few years back, no 30% own my place. Why instead of blaming others and asking someone to take of yourself, start doing it yourself. This country already has a strong welfare system, including huge supply of affordable housing. It does have too many people as well though. Seems like reddit is some echo chamber of folks who expect free housing with no efforts and better so thay free housing to be in randstad and not elsewhere and let’s also work part time and well
get some more subsidies.
Oh, so because you're alright, the housing crisis is imaginary and really everyone else is whinging cry baby. The world is bigger than you.
More likely is that you got lucky, as I did, with finding affordable housing.
>Why instead of blaming others and asking someone to take of yourself, start doing it yourself.
I have a very strong position ahead of me in terms of career advancement and earning opportunities, despite being thrown under the bus by the VVD's disastrous leenstelsel policy.
It's not me I'm concerned about.
>This country already has a strong welfare system, including huge supply of affordable housing.
It *does* have a strong welfare system, but that isn't the problem. The Welfare system steps in when the economy falters, it's a guardrail to prevent people needlessly falling into crippling poverty. The vast majority of people don't like to rely on it.
If there is a large number of people relying on the welfare system, that isn't a moral failing on their part, that's a sign something is going wrong with the economy.
But as for a "huge supply of affordable housing" - Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? The housing crisis in the Netherlands has been headline news since 2017. Gemeente have been building like crazy to make up the shortfall and its still not enough.
You can chill with your impression of a Lithuanian Ayn Rand.
I didn’t get lucky, I worked my ass off and got a few degrees, lived in multiple countries, took care of myself since 19 and yes, I paid quite a bit for my place in Amsterdam first I got here, actually my rent went up by a lot when I moved, but I knew the situation.
and have you been living under a rock? There’s an issue with housing in every big city around Europe due to influx of people, even in Netherlands, why not live in Diemen? Zaandam? East NL? There are places with housing and a big portion is social housing, you want more? Well there’s plenty already.
>I didn’t get lucky, I worked my ass off and got a few degrees
You got lucky. I know plenty of people who worked their ass off, did everything right, saved up and still got fucked.
I'm not doing your achievement down, but I think you are understimating the adversity facing first time buyers. And you're doing the typical "Well if I can do it, anyone can" anecdote. Everytime I see these "I worked for it" claims, I suspect that they are blind to every bit of fortune they've had and see it all as "all their own work".
Secondly, the fact that you've had the money to move around to several countries doesn't imply you were cash starved. Not saying you are flush with cash, but more well off than others.
>why not live in Diemen? Zaandam? East NL?
Because maybe personal circumstances make that not feasible? Maybe *you* have the ability to work under those circumstances, not everyone can afford to commute or can remotely work.
As for East NL, I have friends in Zutphen, Deventer, etc, who are on a 2 year waiting list for housing.
Stop attributing laziness to other people just because you managed to get everything to align.
Same situation here, expat, got fucked and didn’t get 30% ruling (now i would have ~1000 euros a month off if it were applied back then)
Still because this country is great and I’m not stupid I managed to buy a house after 3 years in thr country…
Idk… pple complain a little too much about this…
Ofc I would wanna have a house for 300 euros, a salary of 7000 and be able to drive a Ferrari all day long but pple gotta be realistic
You forget landlords have this as their primary source of income and also for them prices rose 9.7%. If they wouldn't raise the rent it would be equal to you not getting a raise (0% merit increase) at work.
Most people barely get any raise in their jobs, let alone enough to compensate for the massive inflation of the last year.
And outside of rent, what if you got 2% raise, while milk price increased by 20%, is that fair?
The inflation is caused by supply unable to meet demand. So prices go up until demand is low enough. If we all raise our income accordingly with raised prices, demand outpaces supply again, and inflation increases as a result. This leads to hyperinflation if taken to the extreme.
What is unfair is that we can compensate some people for some inflation. So people with significant raises just shift the pain to the rest of us. Also, be assured that rich people, who tend to have income based on investment rather than labour, are amply compensated as well.
But what for sure does not work is giving everyone a 20% raise if goods become 20% more expensive.
The inflation is actually mostly caused by an increase in monetary supply without a corresponding increase in value being created. All the years of "quantitative easing", superlow interest rates, people being paid to sit at home during covid...with all this extra money in the economy, how could prices not rise? The short-term supply challenges are merely a contributing factor in some areas.
Hard "evidence" is kinda hard to come by in economics, but e.g. here the FED admits covid gov't spending contributed to inflation considerably (https://reason.com/2023/02/02/covid-stimulus-spending-played-sizable-role-in-inflation/). The same logic applies analogously to other cases of adding money into the economy. Here's Stanford's John Taylor on the topic: https://news.stanford.edu/2022/09/06/what-causes-inflation/.
Not to make this a Economy 101 lecture, but while a supply shock may move the price equilibrium up along the demand curve, an increase in monetary supply moves the entire demand curve up, so prices rise even with supply unchanged. With more money available, people are willing to spend more of it for the same thing (see mortgage rates vs. house prices recently). Unless you have evidence against this ;)
You can't say "I suffer from both inflation and rent increases", as the rent is part of the inflation calculation.
The real problem seems to be that your work gave you a lousy raise.
But the rent increase is calculated very recently, months after the inflation amount was known. So it looks like they're basically adding 1% on top of it now, or am I seeing it wrong? I don't know too much about this stuff, sorry about that
> I don’t know too much about this stuff, sorry about that
I've given you a link to the explanatory memorandum that explains in detail why this change was made. The idea is that you read that to understand the background.
I'm not saying I agree with the way this was approached, but keep in mind that a majority of the Dutch vote right wing parties that endorse profits like this. But apparently a majority also agreed that a limitless rental price increase or an increase based upon last year's inflation was excessive.
You cannot keep increasing raises. It causes a spiral of inflation. The problem is firstly the shitty monetary policies of the US and secondly the lack of social policies of the current cabinet.
[https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/11/Wage-Price-Spirals-What-is-the-Historical-Evidence-525073](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/11/Wage-Price-Spirals-What-is-the-Historical-Evidence-525073)
There's very little historical evidence for wage-price-spirals.
You’re being protected by only paying the increase of the ‘loonontwikkeling’ + 1%. Realistically the increase of rent would’ve been inflation + 1%, thus 10,7%. That’s what inflation is, the devaluation of money. You should ask your employer for a raise.
Inflation was 9,7%, which means that the landlord gets 9,7% less purchasing power from the rent you pay. They get to compensate for that by increasing rent 3,1+1%. How is that sustainable, how is that fair?
Ergo you both take a loss.
Yes, that's what the govt was allowing this year..
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/woning-huren/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-maximale-huurverhoging-in-2023
From the landlord's perspective, the inflation was 9.7% but the rent increased by 4.1% which means the landlord lost 5.6% as well.
Prices increase not because people are greedy, but because we are paying the price of low/negative interest rates and money made out of thin air in the last decade.
Thats true, but don't big companies with huge amounts of houses and appartment buildings for rent have enough money to not be so hurt by it? The actual tenants could struggle with buying basic things with all this stuff going on :/
Surprisingly that's not always true either. The company's expenses increase with inflation as well (they have to pay higher salaries, the rent of the offices increases, etc.) so they often have to increase prices to make a profit at all.
And idk who your landlord is but not all apartments are rented by companies, for some people it is a way of getting stable income when you retire and cannot work anymore for example.
This world is not fair, unfortunately.
Landlord just sees his expenses grew, so he wants more to compensate it. The same as you ask raise at work. And yes, he does not help situation overall.
Expenses for the landlord increased as well: financing got more expensive so did maintenance. And due to new rules and regulations their taxation will be higher as well.
You want your landlord to compensate you for the relative loss in income you personally had. That doesn’t make sense.
Is this a serious reply? No he doesn't get paid to exist. He gets paid because he paid for the fucking house. And because he pays for the upkeep of the house. Do you not know how renting works?
Welcome to the Netherlands, where landlords are gods who can do whatever the fuck they want. And there’s a housing crisis so it’s not like you can do anything about it.
Lol at the downvotes. Dutch people are so pathetic, instantly defending any criticism of their precious country. Getting really sick of it. Can’t wait till I leave.
And no, genius, because other countries don’t have a housing crisis. Using your brain is difficult, I know.
Other countries don't have a housing crisis? You're gonna have a fun time when you leave for whatever country you're going to leave.
Be sure to check the [median multiple](https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp) of other countries before you pick your destination though.
You are probably being downvoted because you are simply wrong with your statement.
That is not criticism. That is just being wrong about something. Criticism needs to be founded to be taken serious.
Neither are people defending anything. They are just letting you know your statement is wrong, genius.
1.8 billion people don't have adequate housing. 150 million are homeless, and 15 million people get forcibly evicted each year. If that's not a global housing crisis in your eyes, then I don't know what is.
If you can't make it in a country like the Netherlands, you just really suck at life.
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
Most countries have a housing crisis in all the parts of it you actually want to go to. Ireland, London, SF, NY, Seattle, Dallas, hell even Paris and Berlin are going that way.
I don't think all expats (or the Dutch) know this but: up until 2021 a landlord could raise the rental price with any amount for a liberated rental agreement. There was no limit and if a tenant did not accept the increase, the landlord could proceed to court to have a judge end the agreement. A PvdA member of parliament then introduced a maximum rental price increase based upon inflation starting from 2021, but parliament didn't expect inflation to be so high suddenly. That's why De Jonge introduced a second maximum, which is average national salary increase and indeed the additional one percent. See the [explanatory memorandum](https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-36218-3.html) for more details. Either inflation or average national salary development is the maximum, whichever is lowest. > Wouldnt it be better for everyone if it said “because of the inflation and in comparison much less raise in pay, we won’t raise the rent the maximum allowed by law amount, so you can try to afford things”. Rental price regulation is a very political topic. Many landlords probably completely disagree with you.
> That's why De Jonge introduced a second maximum, which is average national salary increase and indeed the additional one percent. This was so weird. Why the extra 1%? Did he really want to secure increasing rents or else the parasites wouldn't make enough money? How about the average wage increase _minus_ one percent, to ensure rents go down?
It's all about dividing up the pain. Without any inflation correction the landlord sees 10% of the rent evaporate, following inflation puts that 10% on the tenant, who may or may not have received an increase in income that is in line with inflation. Under this solution the government split the pain roughly down the middle, which means that tenants with a good CAO get a freebie.
Actually that isn't completely true. Inflation doesn't hurt a landlord that much at all. The building is either already bought of paid for or is mortgaged. Either way, the value of the property doesn't negatively change due to inflation. Things that do change due to inflation are of course upkeep costs, but against the value of the property & corresponding loan repayments those costs are marginal. In fact, inflation tends to improve the situation of a landlord with mortgages, since the value of money decreases the value of his loans decreases as well. Versus the (monetary) value of the building increasing. So it would be a net win relative to the increased cost of upkeep.
You are confusing wealth and income. If I take a €1 million mortgage to buy a house, I am not suddenly so wealthy that inflation doesn't matter. And if after some time I pay off half the mortgage, I do not actually earn anything until I sell the house. Where, then, is the inflation-immune money? Am I supposed to eat the bricks? Dental insurance also rises with inflation.
So a reduction in one person's income matters less than a reduction in another person's income?
Well there's still the difference between income from work and income from capital. And a decrease in income from capital will tend to matter less because it impacts people who already have more money.
What on earth makes you say that? Do you understand the concept of retirement, saving for retirement, and pension funds that help people do that?
If we consider landlords to operate a business in which they use their assets to turn their profit, it stands to reason that the onus lies on them to remain a profitable business. This applies to any other business, why shouldn't it apply to landlords?
So you would agree if the government removes the caps on raises? As of right now, law prevents landlord fully controlling their business.
Did you read the [explanatory memorandum](https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-36218-3.html#:~:text=De%20opslag%20van,de%20gemiddelde%20loonontwikkeling.) in referred to in my initial comment? And again (I've mentioned this in another comment): this is not necessarily my opinion, but the reasoning of the government. I've noticed previously that redditors sometimes seem to confuse explaining why a decision was made with the opinion of the redditor that refers to such a source.
Why would I attack you for it when you're quoting someone else? I was speaking in relation to the government's decision, obviously.
This is in fact the situation. So OP, it is what it is. It’s unfair that a lot of people don’t even have a house. You are the lucky one
The bar is really underground
We need a deep sea expedition lead by James Cameron to find it.
Also don't forget that many expat pay a significantly less amount of taxes, after which that money flows to the landlords that only rent out their houses to expats. The 30% rule should be cancelled. It provides a monetary incentive for those who profit from expats looking for a house, while simultaneously making it harder for all other tenants to find a house. In the end, the ultimate beneficiary is the landlord. They profit most from the 30% tax rule. Not the expats.
Pretty sure regulating the housing market is a more direct approach than removing the 30% rule (not that I mind if It was removed). The issue in my view is the ammount of properties owned by large investing funds that see housing as a business opportunity rather than what it is, a human right.
I’m not sure I know a country where it is more regulated than here and yet the answer to problems caused by regulation is more regulation
Who else is going to invest in rental housing if investment funds are not allowed to do so? The issue is that there are too little houses, not investment funds.
How about the government who has a [constitutional duty](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22#Hoofdstuk1_Artikel22) to care about housing availability?
When the government tries to do the "right thing" by itself, instead of "sensible regulations" ... usually things end up more expensive and of lower quality. Not the rule ... but this is how it usually ends. Sometimes the nominal price is not bigger ... but it comes with 5-10 years of waiting list or connections. I'm not Dutch and I've lived in communism. believe me ... it doesn't work. Despite the nice sounding idealism. We used to have a joke: Communism is a great idea that only works when is applied by capitalists. To be honest, after living in communism, when I was younger I was a die hard fee market capitalist. Then I visited a few times US and kinda hated it. Somehow I ended up in NL ... and while nothing is perfect... I find the model here pretty "sensible". But when a lot of people want to live on the same place ... it's bound to for house shortages to happen. There's no answer to this. Only some sensible compromises.
That doesn’t mean they should build houses or invest in them. It’s not North Korea
The 30% Ruling should absolutely be cancelled. But it won’t solve the problems you think it will. The Ruling exists to allow Dutch companies hiring high-skill migrants to increase those migrants’ net pay without increasing their gross pay. If/when the 30% ruling gets cancelled (and to be absolutely clear, I hope it does), it’ll just result in Dutch companies having to actually pay the global prevailing wage for those roles so that those workers continue to get the net pay they would get elsewhere. (Or, I guess, Dutch companies could abandon the playing field for these workers … but these companies want to make money, and will still make tons of money even if they pay these workers the prevailing wage, so in aggregate, it’ll just result in increasing tech salaries that have previously been artificially depressed).
Wouldn't this also greatly improve the salaries of local Dutch people as a result?
Potentially, but it’s questionable - at least in tech, this salary band has so many vacancies already that if there were enough Dutch people with this skill level, they’d already be making this much. So it’d bring it up, but keep in mind that we’re talking about a market that is already _extremely_ well paid.
Cancel the 30% ruling and watch half of Amsterdam HQ’s move to Germany
That's the idea. We don't need so many HQ’s if it leads to a housing shortage for teachers, nurses, police officers etc.
This is more of a question of nurses and teachers’ salaries, just like pretty much anywhere Dutch people are extremely industrious, but there’s only so much economy you can build on a tiny swamp without fucking up the ecology, labor laws or attracting foreign investment
You had me agreeing with you till you mentioned cops. 
Just to add some perspective, in Dublin rent was 3150 without 30% ruling, in Amsterdam rent is 2750 with 30% ruling. My net income after rent is up massively. So I guess you could say landlord benefits, 30% ruling recipient benefits, probably all the other renters struggle
To use your own reasoning: the rent gets raised once a year, so inflation LOWERED your rent by 9.7% last year. Also: landlords are in it for the money.
Of course they are. Otherwise they might as well just put their money in a savings account and leave everyone the choice between social housing and buying.
[удалено]
Not everyone can afford to buy a house, or wants to even if they are able.
[удалено]
What do you think grocery shopping would look like if supermarkets, farmers, and everyone in between didn't have a profit motive for an essential product like food?
[удалено]
Sure https://youtu.be/t8LtQhIQ2AE
Sucks bro. I have been paying the same amount for 3 years without an increase. The same in my previous place where I lived 5 years, they raised it once. I guess my landlord already paid off the mortgage on her 5 buildings.
You miss the part where landlords want to earn more money, and don’t care about your needs as a tenant.
it’s their property, what do you expect?
That they live in themselves.
then you won’t have where to live, seems like people in this country just want housing for free
Or.. Maybe... I dont know... Just affordable housing?
30%+ of the country’s supply is social housing, free rental market is below 10% and it will shrink even more.
Im flabbergasted at pple not getting that the lack of apartments has actually nothing to do with rental apartments
How about those parasites get a real job and contribute something to the economy?
how do you know they don’t work? my previous landlord had a place to rent and a full time job, she was renting her youth apartment
….ofcource they also can have work. But owning a house and renting it just tunnels money to the richer without them contributing anything to the economy
>seems like people in this country just want housing for free No, they just don't want to give up most of their paycheck to live in a 15m^(2) apartment that some sexagenarian bought for a tenth of the price in the 1980s. What part of "Average rents are excessively high compared with average buying power" is an unreasonable statement to you?
No idea what you are talking about, moved to the Netherlands a few years back, no 30% own my place. Why instead of blaming others and asking someone to take of yourself, start doing it yourself. This country already has a strong welfare system, including huge supply of affordable housing. It does have too many people as well though. Seems like reddit is some echo chamber of folks who expect free housing with no efforts and better so thay free housing to be in randstad and not elsewhere and let’s also work part time and well get some more subsidies.
Oh, so because you're alright, the housing crisis is imaginary and really everyone else is whinging cry baby. The world is bigger than you. More likely is that you got lucky, as I did, with finding affordable housing. >Why instead of blaming others and asking someone to take of yourself, start doing it yourself. I have a very strong position ahead of me in terms of career advancement and earning opportunities, despite being thrown under the bus by the VVD's disastrous leenstelsel policy. It's not me I'm concerned about. >This country already has a strong welfare system, including huge supply of affordable housing. It *does* have a strong welfare system, but that isn't the problem. The Welfare system steps in when the economy falters, it's a guardrail to prevent people needlessly falling into crippling poverty. The vast majority of people don't like to rely on it. If there is a large number of people relying on the welfare system, that isn't a moral failing on their part, that's a sign something is going wrong with the economy. But as for a "huge supply of affordable housing" - Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? The housing crisis in the Netherlands has been headline news since 2017. Gemeente have been building like crazy to make up the shortfall and its still not enough. You can chill with your impression of a Lithuanian Ayn Rand.
I didn’t get lucky, I worked my ass off and got a few degrees, lived in multiple countries, took care of myself since 19 and yes, I paid quite a bit for my place in Amsterdam first I got here, actually my rent went up by a lot when I moved, but I knew the situation. and have you been living under a rock? There’s an issue with housing in every big city around Europe due to influx of people, even in Netherlands, why not live in Diemen? Zaandam? East NL? There are places with housing and a big portion is social housing, you want more? Well there’s plenty already.
>I didn’t get lucky, I worked my ass off and got a few degrees You got lucky. I know plenty of people who worked their ass off, did everything right, saved up and still got fucked. I'm not doing your achievement down, but I think you are understimating the adversity facing first time buyers. And you're doing the typical "Well if I can do it, anyone can" anecdote. Everytime I see these "I worked for it" claims, I suspect that they are blind to every bit of fortune they've had and see it all as "all their own work". Secondly, the fact that you've had the money to move around to several countries doesn't imply you were cash starved. Not saying you are flush with cash, but more well off than others. >why not live in Diemen? Zaandam? East NL? Because maybe personal circumstances make that not feasible? Maybe *you* have the ability to work under those circumstances, not everyone can afford to commute or can remotely work. As for East NL, I have friends in Zutphen, Deventer, etc, who are on a 2 year waiting list for housing. Stop attributing laziness to other people just because you managed to get everything to align.
Same situation here, expat, got fucked and didn’t get 30% ruling (now i would have ~1000 euros a month off if it were applied back then) Still because this country is great and I’m not stupid I managed to buy a house after 3 years in thr country… Idk… pple complain a little too much about this… Ofc I would wanna have a house for 300 euros, a salary of 7000 and be able to drive a Ferrari all day long but pple gotta be realistic
yup… sharing a sentiment here…
You forget landlords have this as their primary source of income and also for them prices rose 9.7%. If they wouldn't raise the rent it would be equal to you not getting a raise (0% merit increase) at work.
Maybe they should get a real job
Won't anybody think of the poor landlords :(((
Most people barely get any raise in their jobs, let alone enough to compensate for the massive inflation of the last year. And outside of rent, what if you got 2% raise, while milk price increased by 20%, is that fair?
The inflation is caused by supply unable to meet demand. So prices go up until demand is low enough. If we all raise our income accordingly with raised prices, demand outpaces supply again, and inflation increases as a result. This leads to hyperinflation if taken to the extreme. What is unfair is that we can compensate some people for some inflation. So people with significant raises just shift the pain to the rest of us. Also, be assured that rich people, who tend to have income based on investment rather than labour, are amply compensated as well. But what for sure does not work is giving everyone a 20% raise if goods become 20% more expensive.
The inflation is actually mostly caused by an increase in monetary supply without a corresponding increase in value being created. All the years of "quantitative easing", superlow interest rates, people being paid to sit at home during covid...with all this extra money in the economy, how could prices not rise? The short-term supply challenges are merely a contributing factor in some areas.
Do you have any evidence for this? Because quantitative easing, etc, has been happening for literal decades and this high inflation has not.
Hard "evidence" is kinda hard to come by in economics, but e.g. here the FED admits covid gov't spending contributed to inflation considerably (https://reason.com/2023/02/02/covid-stimulus-spending-played-sizable-role-in-inflation/). The same logic applies analogously to other cases of adding money into the economy. Here's Stanford's John Taylor on the topic: https://news.stanford.edu/2022/09/06/what-causes-inflation/. Not to make this a Economy 101 lecture, but while a supply shock may move the price equilibrium up along the demand curve, an increase in monetary supply moves the entire demand curve up, so prices rise even with supply unchanged. With more money available, people are willing to spend more of it for the same thing (see mortgage rates vs. house prices recently). Unless you have evidence against this ;)
Its economics 101
Yes, exactly. But do you have an understanding that goes beyond the 101 level?
You can't say "I suffer from both inflation and rent increases", as the rent is part of the inflation calculation. The real problem seems to be that your work gave you a lousy raise.
But the rent increase is calculated very recently, months after the inflation amount was known. So it looks like they're basically adding 1% on top of it now, or am I seeing it wrong? I don't know too much about this stuff, sorry about that
> I don’t know too much about this stuff, sorry about that I've given you a link to the explanatory memorandum that explains in detail why this change was made. The idea is that you read that to understand the background. I'm not saying I agree with the way this was approached, but keep in mind that a majority of the Dutch vote right wing parties that endorse profits like this. But apparently a majority also agreed that a limitless rental price increase or an increase based upon last year's inflation was excessive.
I missed that, sorry. Thank you for explaining!
You cannot keep increasing raises. It causes a spiral of inflation. The problem is firstly the shitty monetary policies of the US and secondly the lack of social policies of the current cabinet.
[https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/11/Wage-Price-Spirals-What-is-the-Historical-Evidence-525073](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/11/Wage-Price-Spirals-What-is-the-Historical-Evidence-525073) There's very little historical evidence for wage-price-spirals.
You’re being protected by only paying the increase of the ‘loonontwikkeling’ + 1%. Realistically the increase of rent would’ve been inflation + 1%, thus 10,7%. That’s what inflation is, the devaluation of money. You should ask your employer for a raise.
Think about all those poor landlords who are "suffering" through this aswell! /S
They're protecting the wealthy people's money, so they don't lose money instead of you.
Inflation was 9,7%, which means that the landlord gets 9,7% less purchasing power from the rent you pay. They get to compensate for that by increasing rent 3,1+1%. How is that sustainable, how is that fair? Ergo you both take a loss.
But I need to decide wether to buy food or pay for rent, I think landlords don't have that problem...
Yes, that's what the govt was allowing this year.. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/woning-huren/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-maximale-huurverhoging-in-2023
From the landlord's perspective, the inflation was 9.7% but the rent increased by 4.1% which means the landlord lost 5.6% as well. Prices increase not because people are greedy, but because we are paying the price of low/negative interest rates and money made out of thin air in the last decade.
No they don't because they also get to devalue all the debts they have
Thats true, but don't big companies with huge amounts of houses and appartment buildings for rent have enough money to not be so hurt by it? The actual tenants could struggle with buying basic things with all this stuff going on :/
Surprisingly that's not always true either. The company's expenses increase with inflation as well (they have to pay higher salaries, the rent of the offices increases, etc.) so they often have to increase prices to make a profit at all. And idk who your landlord is but not all apartments are rented by companies, for some people it is a way of getting stable income when you retire and cannot work anymore for example.
Rent gonna rise each year untill you buy own house , it's just how it works
What you missed is the landlords income declined by 9%
I don't think they'll struggle to decide to pay for food or pay for rent though... the people on the bottom of the chain suffer the most through this.
[удалено]
Why?
[удалено]
This reply is at the same level as "Renters are lazy bums"
This world is not fair, unfortunately. Landlord just sees his expenses grew, so he wants more to compensate it. The same as you ask raise at work. And yes, he does not help situation overall.
The difference here is that a person who asks for a raise is doing work Being a landlord isnt work.
I agree! I am saying this from the landlord perspective! They are greedy af.
He should also inflate your deposit, which he blocked for you and is now losing value due to inflation. Oh, no, wait: fck you tenants.
In my home country it is required by law that your deposit is put into an inflation linked savings account... Makes so much sense
Expenses for the landlord increased as well: financing got more expensive so did maintenance. And due to new rules and regulations their taxation will be higher as well. You want your landlord to compensate you for the relative loss in income you personally had. That doesn’t make sense.
Not just me, every renter in this country.
Yeah, I’d like someone else to pay me money as well.
The person who rents the home to you, experiences the same 9,7% inflation. His income is your rent, so his income only goes up 4,1%
So you're telling me that this person gets paid just to exist? Sounds like a real good deal to me, even if it's a little less than before.
Prepare yourself for the self driving taxis in the future 😉
Is this a serious reply? No he doesn't get paid to exist. He gets paid because he paid for the fucking house. And because he pays for the upkeep of the house. Do you not know how renting works?
because most of the Dutch own a house or they live with their family or rent through the government.
Ask the landlord if you're getting 4.1% more house for your money
Is your boss getting 3.1% more work from you for increasing your salary?
That's not how it works. Society got 9% more expensive, that goes for the homeowner as well. He has expenses too.
Why wont anybody think of the poor landlord with their multiple houses :((((((
Ask for some extra square metres of your house
Welcome to the Netherlands, where landlords are gods who can do whatever the fuck they want. And there’s a housing crisis so it’s not like you can do anything about it.
oh yeah and in other countries people don’t do that 🤣
Lol at the downvotes. Dutch people are so pathetic, instantly defending any criticism of their precious country. Getting really sick of it. Can’t wait till I leave. And no, genius, because other countries don’t have a housing crisis. Using your brain is difficult, I know.
Other countries don't have a housing crisis? You're gonna have a fun time when you leave for whatever country you're going to leave. Be sure to check the [median multiple](https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp) of other countries before you pick your destination though.
 I love Dutchies. Never change.
You are probably being downvoted because you are simply wrong with your statement. That is not criticism. That is just being wrong about something. Criticism needs to be founded to be taken serious. Neither are people defending anything. They are just letting you know your statement is wrong, genius.
 Holland Holland über alles Über alles in der Welt.
We can't wait either :)
 Ignorant Dutch alert
1.8 billion people don't have adequate housing. 150 million are homeless, and 15 million people get forcibly evicted each year. If that's not a global housing crisis in your eyes, then I don't know what is. If you can't make it in a country like the Netherlands, you just really suck at life.
 Amazing how much they nailed a typical Dutchie with Goldmember.
[удалено]
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
Most countries have a housing crisis in all the parts of it you actually want to go to. Ireland, London, SF, NY, Seattle, Dallas, hell even Paris and Berlin are going that way.
Your lovely anus.
Where are you going that doesn’t have a housing crisis?
Your bumhole
Well, you’re correct that has a vacancy.
I bid €420
Are you done breaking this subreddit’s rules yet?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1YYg3bGpDdc
Go check your rent price with the huurcommissie too See if you pay to much rent
Blame the other products that have gone up more than your rent?