121
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 18 points 3 months ago

We need non-profit public housing that is suitable for middle-class families.

Non-profit doesn't mean "free" or that money is being lost, just that the goal is to provide housing at cost rather than profit-seeking. Subsidies and such would still be available for low-income households as needed.

[-] GooberEar@lemmy.wtf 8 points 3 months ago

On one hand, yes this would hurt a lot of people and corporations. On the other hand, we're already hurting, so fuck it.

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Just ban being a landlord guys. Tax owning land that you're not using out of existence. Rent/leases are simple vectors of wealth transferal - they move money from the poor to the rich. Everyone should own their own flat/house. Every business should own the space they work out of.

There is no good reason housing should be an investment vehicle akin to a stock or a bond.

[-] Wilco@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

Why couldn't the US have guaranteed government housing available to any citizen that needs it? A $100 a month apartment to cure homelessness shouldn't be a funny joke ... it should be questioned with "why should it even cost money"?

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Government housing tied to the cost of 1 weeks minimum wage. So simple, so elegant.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 months ago

The government actually helping people without lining the pockets of the capital class? That's commie talk

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

NOT IN MY AMERICA HIPPY!!! -Richard Nixon

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Then this is my take:

  • no taxes on first home
  • some tax on second home
  • taxes on any home past the second grow exponentially, doubling for each additional home
  • order of the homes is always from less expensive to most expensive
  • same is valid for companies
  • for companies owned by other companies, all the houses owned are considered as belonging to the mother (root) company, so there's no "creating matrioskas to that each own a single house"

Obviously offices and factories are not habitable space and therefore not counted in this system.

[-] Mustakrakish@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Housing shouldn't be an investment asset, especially in a for profit system, or you'll just make BlackRock again.

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It shouldn't be an investment asset.

Homebuilding is still a business though. You still need someone to risk their money, assemble the materials and crew, complete the project and find a buyer for it.

If there's no demand for a product no one will build it. There's always going to be demand for a mythical product that can't be built. Like cheap housing.

I just spent $2,000 on a handful of wood, shingles, and siding to patch my house up. like 1/10th of a single wide trailer. That's just the materials i'll be providing the labor which would normally cost $30-$60 hour.

So it shouldn't be an investment asset, someone still has to invest in it being built, so that a homeowner may live there.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I think that’s what s/he was trying to resolve with the doubling of tax on each additional property. It would become cost prohibitive very quickly to have multiple properties.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

It would only be an economic crisis for land owners who seek rent. Really housing shouldn’t be something that people profit from.

[-] Photuris@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Some people want to rent (e.g., young people, people with mobile jobs, or people who just aren’t ready to be tied down to one place).

And I don’t have a problem with a small-time property owner renting out a house at a fair rate. In theory it’s a win-win: the renter gets a place to stay, the landlord builds equity in their property.

The issue we have is two-fold:

  1. Companies buying up massive amounts of property (not just a house or two, but thousands) and turning entire neighborhoods into rent zones, driving out any competition and availability of housing to buy, thereby driving up prices.

  2. Price collusion amongst these companies, driving up rent far above fair rates, using these software services that share going rates across markets. That reduces consumer choice.

Barring a really interesting solution, like a Land Value Tax or something, my proposal to remediate this housing problem is rather straight-forward and simple:

  1. Prohibit these software companies from sharing rental rates info to customers. Landlords just need to figure it out in their own markets the old fashioned way.

  2. Prohibit corporations from buying housing with the intention to rent it. Force these corporations to sell their housing and get out of the landlord business.

  3. Allow individuals to hold property for renting out, but cap number of properties a person or household can own for the express intention of renting out to five at any given time. That allows a person to build up a nice little savings nest, and provide a rental property to someone who wants to rent, but doesn’t allow anyone to dominate a housing market. Look for those massive profits elsewhere - start a business that creates and provides value.

Anyway, one can dream, I guess.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

You can have non profit driven rentals though…? Why does rent need to be profit driving?

[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Some people WANT to have short-term commitments to their housing location. That is currently accomplished through rent. That's an important distinction you are missing while trying to preserve elements of familiarity with the way the world currently works.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

People don't "want to rent". They want shelter. It's just that renting is the easiest way to get that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Landlords are parasites. Period.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Etterra@discuss.online 5 points 3 months ago

We're well past things leading to economic crisis, and it sure wasn't caused by affordable housing.

HeLpiNg pEoPLe iS tOo ExpeNsiVe

Fuck. You.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

My take?

  1. corporations aren't allowed to own land or houses other than the office space and production facilities.

  2. people can only own the buildings they live in (with proof of living there at least X% of the year)

  3. The state takes over all houses and land that become unused by these laws

  4. The state rents out their property as 'rent to own', or as housing for the homeless

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] stormdahl@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

For me personally I’d like a 50-60 square meter apartment for no more than 2x my annual income. And I’d like to be able to get a loan with a monthly down payment equal to whatever I’ve been paying in rent for the last couple of years.

I can pay 12500 NOK a month in rent, but for some reason the bank can’t trust me to pay the same amount if I were to buy an apartment? Fuck that.

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That was a scam they put in place after 2008 when they were being punished for scamming us. (while scamming us for bailouts for the previous scam) It takes a lot of government regulation to keep the banks from stealing, good thing thats gone now!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago

We should live in Tardises

[-] Soapbox1858@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

It should be locked at 50 cents per square foot. So a studio apt would be like $500 a month. Its close enough to what prices were in recent memory before the insane jumps in rent cost the last decade.

[-] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 3 months ago

you could honestly make every apartment cost 100 dollars and no one would actually get affected

Those who own the land and go ape shit over their value don't even take advantage of it and sell it off, more often they just die and have their kids inherit it, and the landlords who benefit from every type of inflation in real estate

of course this assumes every housing unit is owned and managed by the government, and these themselves are incredibly successful even if they only have 10% of the real estate market

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
121 points (96.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

8426 readers
1626 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:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS