I don’t necessarily agree that people can’t make any money on a property portfolio, but it should definitely have a set limit to prevent life’s essentials from becoming unaffordable. But I wouldn’t stop there and continue this with other essentials like healthy consumables and utilities like power and some basic form of broadband internet.
Comment on 'Starter homes' cost at least $1 million in over 200 U.S. cities, Zillow data finds
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 5 days agoThe real issue is the commodification of housing. Houses shouldn’t make people money; they are supposed to be homes to live in.
TON618@lemmy.world 4 days ago
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 4 days ago
Why not guarantee the basic necessities to all citizens? They pay taxes, after all; it’s just that those tax dollars mostly go to bombing people overseas, funding multiple genocides, overmilitarization of police, corporate subsidies and bailouts, etc.
We can very easilly redirect at least some of those tax dollars to pay for everyones’ basic needs, including, but not limited to: housing, healthcare, food, water, waste, high speed internet, public transit (like a bus/train pass).
And if we still don’t have enough tax dollars for that, we can very easilly make more than enough by taxing billionaires and corporations at their appropriate rate, getting rid of all loopholes by ensuring there is a tax floor that all corporations have to pay.
Now, the system I am actually in favor of expands upon this idea of social democracy that I described above by forcing all corporations to become worker-owned coops after splitting them up into small businesses (by city, county, or rural region depending on what the locals prefer). I would also like a hard wealth cap of $50 million tied to inflation. Nobody needs more than $50 million to have more than a happy retirement, regardless of age.
I believe that money = power, and power leads to inevitable corruption. Therefore, the only logical way to prevent corruption is to prevent people from ever being able to have that kind of power.
shalafi@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Nothing wrong with houses as individual investments. Why the hell else would you dump that kinda money and pay ALL the upkeep for decades?! You write the interest off your taxes, have something to show for 30 years of payments when you retire.
Also, nothing wrong with a landlord owning a few homes. He likely ain’t making shit and is taking huge risks. Yes, it’ll pay out someday, hopefully.
The issue is corporate home ownership and, to a lesser extent, B&Bs. Yes, a bank can easily “own” hundreds or thousands of homes. After all, they provide loans and sometimes have to foreclose. But banks renting homes?! Fuck no.
This is easily solvable with legislation, not even “devil is in the details” complexity. We drop the hammer on these corporate landlords, tax the fucking snot out them and run them out of the game. Same goes for entities sitting on real estate, waiting on prices to go up. Tax the hell out of empty homes that have been on the market X days.
The issue is corporate landlords. Rent didn’t used to be like this, it was competitive. My first place was a shithole in college, $250/mo. (I’d happily live there again were I a bachelor.) Same place should be $630. Anyone seen rent that low for anything outside renting a single room in a house?
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Housing as an investment leads to real estate speculation which pushes up prices. It creates a class of people who stand to gain when property values, and downstream of that rent, go up.
This class of people are very wealthy and tend to oppose any action that will decrease there property value. That includes things like building dense affordable housing, especially close to them, as that increases the supply of housing and thus decreases there property value.
This is true especially for land lords, even small “mom and pop” landlords. There goal is to raise rent and the value of there investment. Anything that will lower rent or even stabilize it like rent control they will oppose, no matter their scale.
Tl;dr: housing speculation creates a wealthy class of people opposed to housing affordability.
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 4 days ago
Exactly, and trying to fix the problem with regulations is only a temporary bandage to a problem that looks a whole lot like a shotgun wound.
The thing about social democracy (regulated capitalism) is that it is a system that leaves the wealthy in charge of everything. This will inevitably lead to corruption solely because of the fact that corruption is possible to begin with.
It’s like putting a box of matches next to a campfire expecting it to never light on fire when there’s a bucket of water next to it that you can dunk it in, except the bucket is behind you and everyone keeps telling you to not look behind you because it’s dangerous.
NatakuNox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
This! We have the means to provide housing for everyone but don’t because, fuck you thats why.