It would only be an economic crisis for land owners who seek rent. Really housing shouldn’t be something that people profit from.
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
1349 points (97.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
7361 readers
2274 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Some people want to rent (e.g., young people, people with mobile jobs, or people who just aren’t ready to be tied down to one place).
And I don’t have a problem with a small-time property owner renting out a house at a fair rate. In theory it’s a win-win: the renter gets a place to stay, the landlord builds equity in their property.
The issue we have is two-fold:
-
Companies buying up massive amounts of property (not just a house or two, but thousands) and turning entire neighborhoods into rent zones, driving out any competition and availability of housing to buy, thereby driving up prices.
-
Price collusion amongst these companies, driving up rent far above fair rates, using these software services that share going rates across markets. That reduces consumer choice.
Barring a really interesting solution, like a Land Value Tax or something, my proposal to remediate this housing problem is rather straight-forward and simple:
-
Prohibit these software companies from sharing rental rates info to customers. Landlords just need to figure it out in their own markets the old fashioned way.
-
Prohibit corporations from buying housing with the intention to rent it. Force these corporations to sell their housing and get out of the landlord business.
-
Allow individuals to hold property for renting out, but cap number of properties a person or household can own for the express intention of renting out to five at any given time. That allows a person to build up a nice little savings nest, and provide a rental property to someone who wants to rent, but doesn’t allow anyone to dominate a housing market. Look for those massive profits elsewhere - start a business that creates and provides value.
Anyway, one can dream, I guess.
You can have non profit driven rentals though…? Why does rent need to be profit driving?
People don't "want to rent". They want shelter. It's just that renting is the easiest way to get that.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Some people WANT to have short-term commitments to their housing location. That is currently accomplished through rent. That's an important distinction you are missing while trying to preserve elements of familiarity with the way the world currently works.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
I mean, 0 new apartments would be built
Existing apartments would be removed from the market too. $100 per month costs the owner more than keeping the apartment empty, because tenants are a risk.
If people thought that such a law was going to be permanent, or if there were fees for leaving apartments empty, then many (most?) apartments would be permanently destroyed - either converted to something else (condos, commercial space, etc) or just demolished so that the land could be used some other way.
You forgot the outcome that they could be sold. You know, so that a non landlord could own one.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
We need non-profit public housing that is suitable for middle-class families.
Non-profit doesn't mean "free" or that money is being lost, just that the goal is to provide housing at cost rather than profit-seeking. Subsidies and such would still be available for low-income households as needed.
pretty sure this would lead to some sort of economic crisis
And? We’ve already tried it the other way around, and we’ve really got nothing to lose at this point by trying OOP’s idea out.
My take?
-
corporations aren't allowed to own land or houses other than the office space and production facilities.
-
people can only own the buildings they live in (with proof of living there at least X% of the year)
-
The state takes over all houses and land that become unused by these laws
-
The state rents out their property as 'rent to own', or as housing for the homeless
That's basically China with extra steps. How are you going to deal with your companies siphoning money out of your economy by buying foreign real estate?
Of course, it's basically a communist idea from even before the Russian revolution.
To answer your question: since corporations aren't allowed to own more than the buildings they work with, they could not buy foreign real estate - except for facilities or offices they really use.
I don't think I know all the answers, it was just a interesting idea I read a while ago.
As far as I know it was never implemented, so weather it would work out or not is just speculation.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
Economic crisis? That would be terrible! It's a good thing we never have any economic crises under the current system!
Surely not one that would cause the US to drop 10% of its stock market value in 4 months.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why couldn't the US have guaranteed government housing available to any citizen that needs it? A $100 a month apartment to cure homelessness shouldn't be a funny joke ... it should be questioned with "why should it even cost money"?
Government housing tied to the cost of 1 weeks minimum wage. So simple, so elegant.
The government actually helping people without lining the pockets of the capital class? That's commie talk
NOT IN MY AMERICA HIPPY!!! -Richard Nixon
load more comments
(4 replies)
For me personally I’d like a 50-60 square meter apartment for no more than 2x my annual income. And I’d like to be able to get a loan with a monthly down payment equal to whatever I’ve been paying in rent for the last couple of years.
I can pay 12500 NOK a month in rent, but for some reason the bank can’t trust me to pay the same amount if I were to buy an apartment? Fuck that.
That was a scam they put in place after 2008 when they were being punished for scamming us. (while scamming us for bailouts for the previous scam) It takes a lot of government regulation to keep the banks from stealing, good thing thats gone now!
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
Then this is my take:
- no taxes on first home
- some tax on second home
- taxes on any home past the second grow exponentially, doubling for each additional home
- order of the homes is always from less expensive to most expensive
- same is valid for companies
- for companies owned by other companies, all the houses owned are considered as belonging to the mother (root) company, so there's no "creating matrioskas to that each own a single house"
Obviously offices and factories are not habitable space and therefore not counted in this system.
Housing shouldn't be an investment asset, especially in a for profit system, or you'll just make BlackRock again.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
On one hand, yes this would hurt a lot of people and corporations. On the other hand, we're already hurting, so fuck it.
Just ban being a landlord guys. Tax owning land that you're not using out of existence. Rent/leases are simple vectors of wealth transferal - they move money from the poor to the rich. Everyone should own their own flat/house. Every business should own the space they work out of.
There is no good reason housing should be an investment vehicle akin to a stock or a bond.
you could honestly make every apartment cost 100 dollars and no one would actually get affected
Those who own the land and go ape shit over their value don't even take advantage of it and sell it off, more often they just die and have their kids inherit it, and the landlords who benefit from every type of inflation in real estate
of course this assumes every housing unit is owned and managed by the government, and these themselves are incredibly successful even if they only have 10% of the real estate market
The money that exits the economy through large landlords (not small landlords) is essentially wasted, I bet the economy would actually grow if we had proper gov. Housing that allowed people to actually spend their monthly wages on literally anything else
load more comments
(4 replies)
What could go right? If apartments cost $100, everyone would own one and there would be no speculative market in them — no rental market at all probably.
load more comments
(15 replies)
It should be locked at 50 cents per square foot. So a studio apt would be like $500 a month. Its close enough to what prices were in recent memory before the insane jumps in rent cost the last decade.
We're well past things leading to economic crisis, and it sure wasn't caused by affordable housing.
HeLpiNg pEoPLe iS tOo ExpeNsiVe
Fuck. You.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The President has that power now, because of the ╣¥th Amendment.
Ah yes, the MISSINGNO amendment. (Or at least that's how your comment loaded for me)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Like the stock market losing trillions? That kind of economic crisis?
load more comments
(2 replies)
No one who owns a home would vote for them. It's not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else's homes, but by a lot less.
Eh, I'd go for it. This whole country thing isn't about my personal gain, but making life better for everyone.
Housing should not be an investment. They didn't lose anything except speculated value which comes at the cost of locking others out from the ability to own their own home. In fact, those morons who care so much about "muh investment" are also costing themselves through higher property taxes and ridiculous house prices they'd have to face if they ever have to move.
There are quite a few people who say they wouldn't be able to afford the house they have now if they had to finance it at today's prices and interest rates. How can they realize the capital gains on such an "investment" if they don't own more than one home? They still have to live somewhere.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I get why they would lose money, but in my head it's still like you still have a home still so why should they care.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)