• gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours 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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If I were President, I wouldn’t try to rule my country like a (particularly stupid) King. I would ask Congress to convene a task force comprised of economic experts, and then to propose, debate, amend, and hopefully pass a piece of legislation that addresses housing costs while having the consent of a majority of elected representatives. And if Congress said no, I would suggest that the citizens vote in new Congresspeople who will actually take the actions they desire.

    Also I would ban any stupid kids from voicing any “if I were in charge” opinions, on penalty of time-out and having their phones taken away.

  • Soapbox1858@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 hours 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.

  • stormdahl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    22 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours 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!

  • Wilco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    20 hours 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”?

  • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      21 hours ago

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

      • TronBronson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours 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.

        • TronBronson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          You would have to close the endless amounts of tax deductions on real estate to make it matter. If they can write off the loss as a business cost than the portfolio will just eat the tax and pass it on to the renters.

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Property taxes can also be used in this manner, you don’t need national legislation to use your city/town council. You have a lot of power at a local level to solve your local problems, its hard to get peopel organized for it. You tax undesirable housing to subsidize housing your desire. I know my problems here in Maine are different than those in California as far as real estate.

      A national plan and blueprint would be nice, but i still think this is a problem with local governments that can’t be solved as each location has its own needs and problems.

      There’s no market incentive for building small homes or efficent towns. Think about how much money we spent to get people to use EV’s same needs to happen for housing, you need incentives for buyers and producers to take the great leap.

  • Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    2 days ago

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

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It would be a crisis for anyone who wants to rent, because they won’t be able to anymore.

      No one’s going to rent out an apartment if they’d have to do it at a huge loss. So as soon as this went into effect, all rentals would vanish and everyone who can’t afford to buy a house would be homeless.

  • taanegl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    The floor moves to vote in the “Send gansey boy (a.k.a @dickthree) to hell” bill.

    Respond with a yay or a nay.

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 days ago

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

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 days 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.