121
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

THATS UNIRONICALLY BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

pretty sure this would lead to some sort of economic crisis

And? We’ve already tried it the other way around, and we’ve really got nothing to lose at this point by trying OOP’s idea out.

[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Economic crisis? That would be terrible! It's a good thing we never have any economic crises under the current system!

[-] snowdrop@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

What could go right? If apartments cost $100, everyone would own one and there would be no speculative market in them — no rental market at all probably.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

15 years ago I rented an apartment, in the US, for $250 a month.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] kruhmaster@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

If you can't beat 'em, DEPORT 'EM TO HELL!

[-] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

That sounds like a violation of the separation of church and state!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hazelnutcookiez@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
121 points (96.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

8440 readers
1702 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