Just sayin : memes

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 187 points 9 months ago

No one gets a second home until everyone has their first.

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 99 points 9 months ago

Rental has its place, there have been plenty of occasions in my life where rental suited me better than ownership. Regulation and enforcement of said regulations would do a lot to protect people in this situation.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Rent apartments. Own houses.

*Since some people really need every combination addressed: Rent/own apartments. Own houses.

[-] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 19 points 9 months ago

How do you handle situations where people want to live temporarily in houses? An example would be a traveling nurse that doesn't want to be in an apartment building.

[-] Bocky@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

May people prefer to rent houses over owning one. Many of them I speak to tell me they want nothing to do with house maintenance and upkeep and they prefer to rent so that they don’t have to think or worry about any of the repairs. They like being able to just call the property manager when the hot water stops working or when their kiddo accidentally breaks a window.

[-] BritishJ@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago

When the kids breaks a window, they still have to pay. They just don't have to source it, which means they might not be getting the best deal.

Plus, most landlords leave things till the last minute or make it such hard work for the tenant to report it, they don't bother.

The maintenance is built into the rent, so they're already paying for it, just not getting the best deal and losing the option to do it how they want.

[-] Bocky@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Everything you are saying is true, and even with those facts noted, some people still prefer the convenience of renting and some like the carefree aspect of not having to be responsible for the upkeep.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

that's significantly less bad of a problem than the current issue of no one being able to afford homes. that nurse might just have to go for the apartment... that's really not that big of a deal.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Rental property should be publicly owned. Landlords shouldn’t be a thing.

I can see there being exceptions if you say own a property but have to move swiftly elsewhere and can’t/don’t wish to sell it, in such a case letting it out makes sense.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Dude from Ukraine was telling me that most people own condos. He was weirded out that the vast majority of people in the US don't have a vested interest into their neighborhood simply because they believe they won't live there for long.

[-] noobdoomguy8658@feddit.de 10 points 9 months ago

Did he mention that a lot of the real estate that people own in most post-Soviet countries is inherited when (grand)parents die, this being first if not the only step towards the market for most people?

None of the people I know from Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus bought their first apartments on their own through hard work or anything: it's mostly apartments where your grandma died, apartments that you're either massively helped with or outright gifted by parents when yuu have a significant other to move in with (so both families join funds, most coming from selling some dead relative's apartment) or on a wedding day (a rarer occasion), or some mix of that.

Without any help or gifts, you're lucky to be able to get a mortgage that you can pay off before you're 60 (at least).

The real estate prices outside the US and the EU may seem nicer, but salaries and expenses sure don't.

Everybody is screwed, everywhere.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 9 months ago

People who own second and third homes aren't even the issue. It's mega corps that literally own tens of thousands of homes each. A better way to go about it is to just progressively tax people more per home. That second home gets taxed at the same rate but any home after is taxed way way way more. If someone can still afford it then that's fine, just more tax money coming in. That and don't let corps own rental properties.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago

Nope, I said what I said. No one needs a second home. Lots of people need a first.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Dirk@lemmy.ml 64 points 9 months ago

No person should be allowed to own more residential property than they're realistically need for living.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 17 points 9 months ago

I'm just curious how we'll define "realistic", because someone who's into just software programming might be satisfied with a studio apartment. I can't live without my basement workshop however. I like to make stuff.

[-] Dirk@lemmy.ml 30 points 9 months ago

That's valid. But, for example: You don't need a dozen of different houses.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Norgur@kbin.social 47 points 9 months ago

That sounds like a solution but isn't. In my experience, the corporations I had as landlords were completely aware of what they are allowed to do and are obligated to do. The private landlords I had were the craziest bitches imaginable. Stuff didn't happen as it should have, laws were intentionally misinterpreted and twisted, etc.
The reason why my experience differs so much is laws. Here in Germany, we've got strong renter's protection laws. They are still too weak in some places but really, really clear in most. So while my private landlord tried to make me pay for repairs, the company doesn't bother with such illegal bullshit, sends over a contractor they work with regularly and shit gets done.

[-] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 29 points 9 months ago

We have those problems here (the US) too but the greater problem is that corporations buying up homes is driving increases in housing prices. Greater housing prices leads to higher rent and higher mortgage payments, fucking over regular people every which way, unless of course you happened to buy your home 30 years ago, in which case everything's peachy and you can reverse mortgage yourself into a vacation home in Boca.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

Then with all that cash they drop some of it on buying the lawmakers, preventing or removing renter protections. Once that's done, remove things from the lease that cost $$, up the rent. Profit even more.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] frezik@midwest.social 44 points 9 months ago

A co-op is another form of corporation. Dense, multi-family structures should be done that way.

What we don't want is for housing to be a speculative investment. Remove the profit motive of holding a house that's empty and reselling.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] snake_cased@lemmy.ml 39 points 9 months ago

Landownership is wrong all together.

If you think about it, it is completely absurd, why anyone assumes the right to 'own' a piece of land. Or even more land than the other guy. Someone must have been the person to first come up with the idea of ownership, but it is and was never based on anything other than an idea, and we should question it.

After all inheritance of landownership is a major cornerstone of our unjust and exploitative society.

[-] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 30 points 9 months ago

Every generation, people want to try new things and it's nice. But landownership can and has been and good thing in a way that just going back to "anarchy" wouldn't work. E.g. creation of ghettos, who gets to farm the best land, etc.

So then the suggestions are that the land are owned and "managed" by the state apparatus. Now we have a few famines in history to show us how gaining favor in a political system is not the best way to manage the land.

I'm open to better suggestions but just shitting on land ownership seems easy and unproductive.

[-] Aasikki@sopuli.xyz 20 points 9 months ago

If someone owns a house, they kinda have to own at the very least some land around it. I just don't really see any other way for that to work. Would be interesting to hear how that could work otherwise.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Now we have a few famines in history to show us how gaining favor in a political system is not the best way to manage the land.

Doesn't that also mean The Irish famine shows private land ownership isn't the best way to manage land?

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Define for the class what you think anarchy means, and, wait one minute, you think ghettos are created by people not recognizing private land ownership?

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Blackmist@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

That's all well and good but I don't want you living in my garden.

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 24 points 9 months ago

We have one area of actual steady investment in our lives - our homes. And they can't handle us making a tiny bit of money

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

I need an ironic WWII style scaremongering propaganda poster about class war. The 1% have class awareness. Do you?

[-] kamenlady@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Scrath's comment made me check with Bing - i put your comment as the prompt, word by word:

Edit: a week later i was wondering how far image generators get political context right. So i tried the same prompt on civitai ( without any additional resources ). Bing did a better job with the context, at least it repeated some of the input.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Easyreever@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

Or contribute to political campaigns….or a thousand other things they abuse.

[-] ruplicant@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 months ago

no real estate taxes for the first house owned, heavy and progressive taxes starting on the second, is an idea

companies get called people all the time, i'm starting to believe it, but i still think they don't need shelter, so they shouldn't be able to aquire a basic human need

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 14 points 9 months ago

Easy solution in my opinion:

only humans can own residential buildings
you must live in the building you own

load more comments (20 replies)

[-] set_secret@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

investors should not be able to either.

[-] bruhduh@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

B-but CoRpOrAtIoNs Is PeOpLe

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 14 points 9 months ago

I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Weirdly enough new York is on track to do that with Trump's company.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

One to four units should only be owned by people and the owner should have the obligation to live in it or there should be a radius around their property in which they can't own a second one.

Five to eight units should only be owned by well regulated corporations with the fiscal responsibilities this implies. The alternative would be co-ops.

Nine and more should be under a non profit state corporation that charges rent based on trying to break even only (that's how road insurance for people works around here, price is adjusted based on the previous year's cost to the corporation, it's way cheaper than private equivalents elsewhere in the country).

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

yep

[-] Kase@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Can I just say, this is a wonderful template. 🐕

Memes

Rules: