You're viewing a single thread.
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?
Housing is a human right.
The only rights we have are the ones given by those in power to the weak. In this case, you say that housing is a human right. Someone with a pet would label you a monster for not including them. Do animals not have the right to housing?
Housing isn't a human right, it's civilization's privilege. Housing uses resources and knowledge to build. Its impact on the environment needs to be considered and whether its foundation can withstand nature's whims.
The only rights we have are the ones given by those in power to the weak.
Wrong
The rest of what you had to say was pretty shit, too, but I'll save my time and stop there.
Went straight for that Trump meme I see. Says a lot about your opinion. But I'll entertain you enough to write this.
Let me keep things simple, so as you might be able to understand them. As a user on Lemmy, you have the rights extended to you by the owners of server you are on. Start claiming rights they don't agree with, you get banned temporarily or permanently. Extend this to the larger society and you'll find that rights are but mere dreams, nice to have, yet fleeting.
As for the rest, go ahead and build a house wherever you want, whenever you want, with whatever you want, all on your own. See how well that works out for you.
I mean I know my thoughts aren't all that great all the time, but that doesn't mean you have to upstage my dumbassery.
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.
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.
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.
Give them homes. Simple as that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, no, don't you get it? Someone must profit!!1 🙄🤦♀️ (/s in case it isn't clear)
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?
Owning their home? Great! Renting it out? Nah.
The price of housing would fall percipitously without investment property and become affordable again.
Got a source for that claim? I legit want to know.
Basic supply and demand? If you take out investment buyers then total buyers is reduced (the demand portion of supply and demand).
So no actual source to prove this. I’ll even accept an international study.
Edit: 3 days later and no source.