1032
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] essell@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Problem with banning them outright, is where are all the people who can't afford to buy a house going to Live?

Sure, house prices might drop and some people might be able to buy. What about the rest?

Make them homeless?

[-] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago
[-] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 8 months ago

The capitalist system really limits the kinds of things people can imagine. We're not confined to regulating the market from the outside, the government can be the "landlord" without the profit incentive.

[-] essell@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Hmmm. We'll need someone to run that of course.

The government will need someone to do the admin, to be the property master. The government can use some of the income from the tennants to pay their wages, allowing them to profit from the hard work of the tennants of course but we won't hold that against them.

No, property master doesn't sound right? What would we call the person running such a scheme? Building ruler? Land controller? Residence lord?

There's probably a simpler term for it. It'll come to me.

[-] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago

I literally said the word in my reply. Also, you seem to have completely missed the point: we can have them charge rent, or provide it for free, or rent but subsidized, or any other scheme because it's detached from market logic. It's not about the word "landlord", it's about the effects of actions. Call it whatever you want, I don't care.

And admin roles really don't need a wage equivalent to mortgage payments and ownership of the properties they administer, so your comparison is dishonest. I'd prefer you spent your thinking on reason rather than formulating your troll response.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 8 months ago

Give them homes. Simple as that.

[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago

Which homes? The ones that are already in short supply? The ones that are currently being rented out? Would that mean nationalizing those buildings? Or are we building new homes? How are we paying for any of this? Raise taxes? Cut some other services?

None of this is simple when it comes down to the details on how to actually implement it.

[-] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

This is why I like the idea of a crushingly punitive vacancy tax.

In my opinion maximum occupancy should be the goal in a city. If no one lives in an empty space the tax increases exponentially.

Of course, this would never happen but, I can dream.

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

This and huge taxes on AirBnBs. I live on an island that is a regular tourist spot, and housing is so scarce there are people who work full time living in tents in the woods because they can't find a place to live.

In Alaska.

And there are still a bunch of AirBnBs here.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

AirBNB/short term rentals shouldn’t exist. It’s a hotel if the owner isn’t living on site. Hotels are subject to taxes, regulations, and zoning laws.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 8 months ago

Yeah, you're gonna have to back up that claim that homes are in short supply.

Turning homes over to the commons was what I was expecting yeah. And you usually don't have to pay when you reclaim property, so the costs are gonna be manageable.

[-] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

I'm on board with that. Presumably these homes would be government owned, but you're not against anyone owning their home or renting it out right?

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago

Owning their home? Great! Renting it out? Nah.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

No, no, don't you get it? Someone must profit!!1 🙄🤦‍♀️ (/s in case it isn't clear)

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

The price of housing would fall percipitously without investment property and become affordable again.

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Got a source for that claim? I legit want to know.

[-] legion02@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Basic supply and demand? If you take out investment buyers then total buyers is reduced (the demand portion of supply and demand).

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

So no actual source to prove this. I’ll even accept an international study.

Edit: 3 days later and no source.

this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
1032 points (81.3% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9773 readers
241 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS