121
What could go wrong?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
121 points (96.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
8695 readers
2450 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No one who owns a home would vote for them. It's not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else's homes, but by a lot less.
Housing should not be an investment. They didn't lose anything except speculated value which comes at the cost of locking others out from the ability to own their own home. In fact, those morons who care so much about "muh investment" are also costing themselves through higher property taxes and ridiculous house prices they'd have to face if they ever have to move.
There are quite a few people who say they wouldn't be able to afford the house they have now if they had to finance it at today's prices and interest rates. How can they realize the capital gains on such an "investment" if they don't own more than one home? They still have to live somewhere.
Removing speculation from the housing market doesn't remove ownership.
Oh I'm sure those contractors would pass those breaks on and not just pocket the savings /s
This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get 'paid' by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.
How does that lower the cost of homes though?
Edit: to be clear, I mean the cost to the buyer, not the builder.
I think the poster is going by the mistaken assumption that there isn't enough housing so they're looking for incentives to increase supply. which is not the issue.
If you wanted bread to be cheaper, you would increase the supply of bread. If you want homes to be cheaper, increase the amount of homes. It might not be the issue at hand, but it definitely is a valid solution.
corporations are not hoarding bread so they can rent them at obscene rates.
Ideally, if one company charged too much for rent, the person living there could move to another place owned by a different company that would charge cheaper rent, in an effort to take business from the first company.
The issue arrives when monopolies control the majority of homes, but those monopolies can be broken much more easily if the cost of buying homes went down (from an increased supply of them) and the barrier to entry of new homeowners who want to rent went down. That would increase competition and would eliminate these monopolies.
unfortunately in reality that doesn't happen in the market. you can force it though. the government can she should build as many houses as necessary, relatively high quality and super affordable if not free, especially since there's no profit motive. make the houses owned by corporations pointless to the point that they're forced to compete with a non-profit housing entity funded by the public.
and if they don't do a good job just forcibly take them. housing must be a right and we should treat it as such.
if you make more homes, then the value of each home individually would drop.
That's not how it works in reality, unfortunately.
How so?
I get why they would lose money, but in my head it's still like you still have a home still so why should they care.
Lots of people buy homes as an investment, its not only large corporations that do this, and if someone bought a home expecting that when they sell it they will get most of their money back, or even a profit on it, they would really be harmed by a government guaranteeing effectively free housing for all. If you want such a world to exist, it can't be done instantly for sure
Everyone now owns wherever they are living. Current owner residents get reimbursed via taxes for their current equity over a period of time. People and government win, corporations take losses on investments and probably come out ahead anyway.
Obviously an oversimplified idea, but I think we should be asking "How can we make this happen?" more often than dismissing outright.
Taxes don't come out of thin air. What you're proposing is effectively: spend $300k on a house, lose $300k, then lose another $300k from your taxes.
That's why you shouldn't over simplify dumb ideas.
What I'm proposing you wouldn't lose the 300k because you still have your house and you'll get the 300k back over time. And yes taxes don't come out of thin air, but the whole system needs plenty of overhauling.