So you’re saying granny would be fine with a 100% return on her investment at $36 for an offer? No? Shocked I say, shocked.
Granny is part of the problem. Not the biggest part of the pie, but still guilty.
Comment on Grandma is on her own
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Inflation is a thing that exists. Saying that someone is bad simply because they want to update the value of their property is dumb. Also, let’s say granny wants to downisze. Should she sell her home for a value way below market and then be unable to buy a smaller home for herself?
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Yeah yeah I didn’t count inflation but there’s no way in fuck that poor old granny is just under the thumb of inflation.
The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It’s greed from all angles, plain and simple.
I think everyone should get fucked and the housing bubble burst harder than the 08 implosion, frankly. Who is holding the bag isn’t my problem, but the situation now where everyone fucking everyone else over isn’t sustainable and is disproportionately screwing over the lower class. It’s not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys
potustheplant@feddit.nl 6 days ago
The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It’s greed from all angles, plain and simple.
Not really, no. If you’re buying a house for yourself and after that you want to buy a bigger or smaller house, it’d be very dumb to sell waaaay under market when no one else will do that for you in return. You’d be either unable to find a home you can afford or you’d have to spend all of the money from a big house to buy a small apartment.
I think you have a lot of resentment built up and that’s bad for both objectivity and your own health.
It’s not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys
You’re getting worked up over a fictional person that owns a fictional house and wants to sell it for a fictional price. On top of that, you’re making up a lot of details to get even more upset. Relax dude.
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
You say this as if Granny doesn’t have tea and crumpets with the person who can sell her that tiny house every saturday. If she wants to downsize afordably, she should take it up with her ‘Golden Age Bookclub’ buddies who own all the other houses and set the market…
KuroiKaze@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah this is honestly just an incredibly short-sighted and stupid take on the issues. Granny is in the same bucket with the young man in that they are both getting played by billionaires. Being mad at her is an incredible waste of energy compared to campaigning for fair taxes on corporation and billionaires. Anyone with less than 10 million net worth isn’t really your enemy. Stay focused on winning the class Warfare and not dividing regular people.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you can provide her with 1960s health care and living costs, she might be willing to sell you her house for 1960s real estate prices.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Grandma is not the problem.
You can’t go blaming the institutions for the high cost of living when it is very clearly this one anonymous old person who isn’t giving this other anonymous young person a sweetheart deal out of misplaced nostalgia.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide.
Okay, but a bunch of them are in the Rust Belt, where de-industrialization eviscerated the economy and caused a mass exodus to the Gulf Coast and the Mountain West in pursuit of lower wage service sector and sales employment.
I suppose you’re going to claim that the wholesale restructuring of the manufacturing economy was the fault of a handful of 90s-era Wall Street bankers and Corporate Executives, rather than millions of Boomer-era suburbanites with pocket change in their retirement accounts 40 years ago?
This is just bigotry against the 1% is what it is.
Shapillon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Almost bit the bait lol
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 week ago
🏆
Gates9@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
I’ve never subscribed to this generational hatred, as true as it is that the boomers voted for this shit, on account of it’s clearly a deliberate psyop “divide and conquer” campaign. It’s as obvious as the crack epidemic or redlining.
SGforce@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
It’s hard when you work with a guy like I do. He’s 65 and hates absolutely everybody, including his wife, but he’s a coward so he’s very polite. He requires so much coddling that he spends all day sucking up to everyone for whatever praise he can get then immediately turns around and complains about them. He’ll complain about everyone else to the point where they get their breaks, other privileges taken away. Those privileges are also taken from him, giving him more to complain about.
It gets worse, but I’m about to go to bed and don’t want to think about that.
That piece of fucking shit.
mugthol@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
It seems like that is more of an asshole problem than an age problem
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That generation was heavily exposed to leaded gasoline.
Gates9@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
When you think about these problems, you have to separate your personal experience from what you observe happening to the whole system.
SGforce@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
It only takes a few assholes to ruin the whole system
EdgeOfDistraction@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Nah, I’m happy to bag on anyone that benefits from a system and then pulls the ladder up behind them.
KuroiKaze@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Oh yeah Granny’s really in control. It’s definitely not the billionaires and oligarchs that run everything.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Gen X was a higher red percentage this time around, oddly.
DominatorX1@thelemmy.club 6 days ago
By remaining invisible, the billionaires avoid having the finger pointed at them. We only point at each other.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Guess what that generation bought into and voted for fot decades.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 1 week ago
Is one really real responsible or one’s choices of they were not aware of their consequences? (I personally do think so)
But what if they had wrong information?
And what if they were purposefully misinformed by a third party for that third party’s gain?
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 6 days ago
They should have researched things or at least not dismiss anyone who voices any skepticism. I had my free education wasted because no one wanted to take me seriously. At least I get to say I TOLD YOU SO. These people are more then just misinformed. They’re cult members who viciously protect their misinformation.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 1 week ago
I’ve said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn’t occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.
At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they’re better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.
“But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?” If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
“But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!” Doesn’t matter. If they’re vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that’s where people go on holiday.
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
This part applies. It’s not about directly getting a house for the homeless in this case, it’s the fact that they can CLEARLY afford to pay more tax.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage… Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?
rayyy@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Simply exempt small homes. For instance, those with less than 1,600 square feet or so.
Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Most people aren’t homeless because there is no house available no.
You want to tax just having that second home
BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 week ago
Nah fam you got three homes you can pay up
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you can afford 3 houses, you can afford the extra tax on 2 or all 3 of them. And if you can’t, maybe you don’t need hat many fucking houses…
thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
The problem that there are many homeless outweighs the problem that somebody wants to have a holiday home. Soliving the homeless problem by not solving the holiday home problem is valid.
balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Neither Republicans nor Democrats would do something like this. It would be siding with the people over the stockmarket/Billionaires.
Xenny@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Been shouting this for fucking ages.
burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 5 days ago
my solution is to destroy all houses, then NO ONE gets a home!!
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 days ago
True equality!
cenzorrll@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
I say the local government gets eminent domain on any properties that aren’t primary residences staying vacant more than a year and/or vacant >75% of the time over 5 years. Make it the owners responsibility to keep someone living under the roof. There will be enough loopholes that it won’t be their second home, by maybe by the third and any corporately owned ones they’ll start to sweat.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
seems terrible for people that buy houses that are classified as livable and repair them to the extent that they actually are livable.