this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
122 points (94.9% liked)
Videos
14346 readers
118 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're right, that is what the law says.
But never ever forget, the law is meant to protect people with property first, protect property second, and protect people without property third.
Lastly, police are not at all required to protect anyone, much less follow the law.
The entire concept of rent needs to die in a fire. It is inherently exploitative. There is no way to redeem it.
Rent needs to be replaced with "private mortgages" or other approaches that return equity to the occupant.
Individuals that need the flexibility of temporary, short-term housing can use "land contracts" rather than exploitive rental agreements. Land Contracts have fixed payments for the life of the agreement: no annual rent hikes. The occupant is considered an "owner" rather than a "tenant", but only begins gaining equity after three years. The occupant is free to walk away before three years, or renegotiate after.
How do we eliminate renting? We make it less lucrative than other investment options. We increase the tax rate on residential properties to be extremely high. But, we also create a tax exemption for owner-occupants, so your effective tax rate is actually lower on your own home. Landlords are forced to choose between a small return on a rental, or a larger return on a private mortgage or land contract.
With that simple change, landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert "tenants" into "buyers", so they don't have to pay the excess taxes.
Beyond renting, with this change, lenders are motivated to work with borrowers rather than resort to foreclosure. As soon as the bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they are on the hook for the increased tax rate.
Yeah, screw all of that. You want to buy a flat or a house, then buy it. Don't force some weird "solution" that leads to someone having to sell their property or being hit with a tax that basically kills any chance of renting out something.
Whatever this is could just as well be "outlaw being a landlord and force them to sell everything they own at basically zero value". You call this a "simple change" when it's anything but simple - it has more holes in it than swiss cheese.
That is exactly what should happen. It should be practically impossible for an owner to "rent" a property for enough to justify doing it. Landlords should be heavily pressured to convert tenants to buyers.
"Renting" should be confined to commercial activities, not residences. You want to rent out space for a shop, warehouse, office, factory, no problem. This is only for residential property that you are not living in. It should not be economically feasible to rent out such property as an investor, because that practice strips tenants of equity and is the leading factor driving people into poverty.
Go ahead and use your property to generate an income, but do it by charging interest on a loan, not rent.