this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
1062 points (91.7% liked)
Memes
45754 readers
1159 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're really not very bright...
Well I'd say you're really not very polite and that you didn't answer my question.
Why don't you educate me since you're so smart. Are you saying the only people who should own a house are those who are going to live in it?
I'm saying "owning" land shouldn't be a viable way to acquire profit. It's a really basic statement, and it's not a new idea either.
So there should be no land ownership? The government should just build housing for people on land they own, I mean have. Like communism then?
That's the ideal solution, but not the only solution.
There already isn't, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.
Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a "usefulness" score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn't have increased taxes. Empty houses aren't useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don't think that's a very productive topic...
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
That would be incentivised, yes.
This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?
That's the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren't currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.
You do come off as a bit obtuse, and I think that what Gabu is trying to say is that only people should own residential property, not banks/hedge funds/corporations/etc. People should own their residence, and it shouldn't cost half their income. Renting can be beneficial, but it shouldn't cost as much as getting your own mortgage.
A cap on how many properties each person can own would help; no one needs more than a few properties. If residences aren't treated like an investment, prices would be more reasonable, and the barrier to entry lower. Then you could actually move place-to-place every 3 years, sell, and not get robbed by realtors who don't deserve the huge commissions they get on the already over-inflated housing prices.
Did you know that in some places, a seller's agent won't even talk to you unless you have a buyer's agent?
Anyway, small landlords aren't really the problem. It's the big boys who own whole buildings and neighborhoods, driving up prices just because they can. Stricter regulations need to be put into place to make those firms go back to gambling over their shitty stocks and not the roofs over our heads.
Well that's not what he said. He said it shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. He did not specify whether the owner is a major corporation or an individual.
Right, which is why I said what I think they're getting at. Profit on a necessity/right is scummy.