So everyone who has enough money to rent, but not enough to own, should be homeless?
Who said that? Other than you?
Comment on Investors are making up the highest share of homebuyers in 5 years
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoSo everyone who has enough money to rent, but not enough to own, should be homeless? That middle ground of renting has to exist, or we’re overall in a much worse state of affairs. And you can’t rent unless there is a homeowner to rent from.
Also, a lot of people deliberately choose renting over owning, because they value things like not having the financial burden of home repairs, or it being orders of magnitude easier to relocate, for whatever reason, and so on.
Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s not that complicated. Without landlords, there is no renting. Without renting, owning is the only way to have a place to live.
So without renting, if you can’t own, you have no place to live.
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
No, the system should be changed to not arbitrarily restrict people’s access to necessities.
Housing, and other necessities, should be community property. If you don’t live in the house, you forfeit ownership of that house so someone else who needs it can live in it. Fuck the exploitative system of private property ownership.
Renting is only necessitated because we live in a capitalist system. All your complaints only exist because of the capitalist system. It doesn’t need to exist.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Housing, and other necessities, should be community property…Fuck the exploitative system of private property ownership.
So you’d want it to be the case that anyone can enter and live in the house you’re living in, and you have no say in the matter because you don’t own it?
Do you really see no massive problems with such a system?
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Holy bad faith Batman. What a blatantly ignorant misrepresentation of what I said.
You have no concept of what a community property system is. For the love of God, go read fucking theory and educate yourself on alternative political and economic systems.
If you live in the house, it becomes your personal property. Meaning you own it while you live and reside there. No one can just come into your personal space. Yet, when you no longer wish to live there and are moving away, the house transfers ownership back to the community until someone needs it.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Holy bad faith Batman.
Pointing out that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense isn’t bad faith.
For the love of God, go read fucking theory
How about ‘for the love of God, define your fucking terms’, if you’re using them in a way inconsistent with colloquial understanding?
No one in everyday life considers “personal property” and “private property” to not be the exact same thing. Stop playing semantic games and communicate normally, if you expect to ever sway anyone. It also helps not to insult people not privy to said semantic games.
If you live in the house, it becomes your personal property. Meaning you own it while you live and reside there. No one can just come into your personal space. Yet, when you no longer wish to live there and are moving away, the house transfers ownership back to the community until someone needs it.
So:
- How, exactly, is it being determined who gets to live there first/next?
- If none of the residents are actually purchasing the house, who’s footing the bill for them all? I’m seeing estimates that the total residential housing in the US carries a value in the area of $45 trillion, with a T. You think you’re getting anywhere near that with tax revenue? And that’s without even considering new construction and repairs to existing construction.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
The entire concept of “rent” needs to die in a goddamn fire. There are much better arrangements to fill the niche you are talking about. What is lacking is a regulatory environment making those arrangements preferable to rent.
“Rent” is typically a year-to-year arrangement. Every year, the deal is renegotiated and the tenant ends up paying more.
A “Land Contract” is (initially) similar to rent, but it is negotiated only once, and the monthly fee is fixed for the life of the agreement, like a mortgage.
For the first three years of the agreement, you pay your monthly fee, and you live in the home. You are free to walk away at any time.
If you stay longer than three years, the entire agreement automatically converts to a private mortgage, with your first three years of payments considered the down payment. You continue to make the same payment, but now you are earning equity.
All that is well and good, but landlords won’t offer land contracts, because land contracts favor the tenant/buyer.
Not to worry. We’re going to restructure property taxes. We’re going to have landlords begging tenants to switch to land contracts. The way we do it is by offering an owner-occupant exemption to property taxes. This is called a “homestead exemption” in some states. Basically, if you occupy a home, you pay a tiny fraction of the property taxes that you would owe if you didn’t occupy that home. Or, more accurately, if you are an investor, your property tax rate is going to the moon.
Land Contract tenants/buyers are considered “owners”. The property you are living in is owned by the occupants, and financed by the landlord/seller. The property taxes are at the owner-occupant rate, not the investor rate. Property taxes on “rentals” melt all the profits the landlord could be earning, so they are incentivized to switch to land contracts.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The concept of someone having enough money to rent but not enough to own is ghoulish in the first place. If my landlord can pay $1000 for this house’s mortgage and upkeep, and I can pay $1,200 a month for the right to sleep in it, then we should simply cut out the middle man and have me pay that $1,000 a month for mortgage and upkeep directly.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Don’t think you’re being a little dramatic? There are many more costs involved in owning a house than the mortgage payment.
You’re paying for not having the responsibility to pay for any maintenance/repairs upfront, and for having the ability to easily pack up and move on short notice. If the roof suddenly needs replacing, that’s $9500 on average that you have to pay right now.
Chances are, if you’re financially stable enough that you’d be able to handle things like that without it being a financial catastrophe for you, then you do have enough money to own.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Yes, and my rent covers literally all of them. Again, it has to, or else my landlord would be renting this house at a loss. I don’t want the opportunity to pack up and move on short notice. I’ve lived in this city since I was born, and I intend to die here. I should not be forced to pay a premium for a feature I will never use.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So, nothing’s keeping you from buying a house then, since what you already pay in rent covers all of the cost. Right?
Why haven’t you bought a house already, then? Could it be that it doesn’t just cost what you pay in rent each month?